Cause of premox?

[Claudius]

Stefan,
My only bottle of Bonneau de Martray 99 was as you noted, premoxed.
I've had better luck with 96 though I did buy carefully.
My 96 Pillots were also premoxed and after the disaster with 99, I'm never buying Pillot again.
If the domaine sends me 3 cases of 1er Cru wines to make up for the wasted woney in 96 and 99 then I'll think about it.

[jal]

Comparing premature oxidation to TCA taint is like comparing fouls in baseball and basketball. Completely different meanings and a completely irrelevant comparison. I admit I am not that sensitive to TCA because I can usually sense some texture and taste in the wine, I can identify it once it's pointed out though, but usually I just call it a bad/mediocre bottle. Premoxed whites, however, are so obviously bad, there is no mistake there. It is opening a 8 year old bottle and tasting a 40 year old wine - it is dark, it smells very strongly of apple cider (to me anyway), and it tastes awful (hence, PREMATURE oxidation).

So far, I have had bad luck with different bottles of the same case like 1997 Niellon Chassagne Champgains and 1998 Niellon Batard Montrachet,1999 Gagnard Batard Montrachet, 1999 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne, 2000 Sauzet Chevalier, and individual bottles of de Montille and Carillon Puligny, Ramonet Chassagne and many many more than I can remember. Often the next bottle from the case will be fine, but it is a crap shoot. I have not had any premoxed Pernot, and only once had premoxed Leflaive. My strategy is now to drink all bottles that are not Pernot or Leflaive young and not wait.

BTW, there are only two posts by Whuzzup since the new BWE started and they were both on the first day of the forum. I would love him to chime in on this discussion, but it doesn't look very likely.

Speaking of experts, and for what it's worth, John Gilman who writes View from the Cellar was with me when we opened an obviously premoxed bottle of 1999 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne. We both immediately pronounced it premoxed.

More evidence; at my annual pool party, with plenty of BWE experienced tasters around (Pappadoc, Gio, Emil, Jackdaw, Golodetz, Beckwith, and even Ian, Nic and Rob once) there are usually 4-5 bottles of White Burgundy that are clearly premoxed.

I promise you that It is not at this point subtle taint or exaggerated notions but a real epidemic in White Burgundy.

[JimHow]

The vice president of Hart Davis Wines must be wrong then.

Let me see....

Ben Nelson, vice president of Hart Davis Wines, can't identify an oxidized white Burg.

Robert Parker, guru extraordinaire, can't identify a Hardy Rodenstock wine.

John Kapon, can't identify a counterfeit case of '71 Ponsot if it kicked him in the face...

JScott, who has as TCA sensitive a nose as I've ever seen, thinks James Laube is crazy for believing '01 Montelena is flawed...

Hmmm. I'm sensing a trend here... Despite all the condesension and arrogance on sites like here and squires.com, one thing seems clear: Nobody knows what the hell they are talking about...

[JimHow]

By the way, I'm just a backwoods country lawyer from Maine, but I think I understand the alleged differences between the alleged flaws of cork taint and this mysterious malady of "premox" that some people can identify but that vice presidents of Chicago auction houses moving millions of dollars worth of wines (some of it real?) can't seem to identify to anywhere near the same degree....

[Claret]

Jim, it is obvious that you have not been slaking the thirst of the kitchen sink with premoxed wines. It does not take an expert to diagnose a dead premox bottle.

If you have some bottles of white Burgundy ageing away, then I asure you that you will be singing a different song some years down the road. Try a chorus of gurgle, gurgle, gurgle, this sucks.

[stefan]

Yeah, Jim, go buy some '96 or '99 white Burgs. Come back on your knees when you have poured the fifth or sixth one down the drain.

stefan

[Tom In DC]

Jimbo,

Well then, your last statement above:

Despite all the condesension and arrogance on sites like here and squires.com, one thing seems clear: Nobody knows what the hell they are talking about...

begs the obvious "Why the heck is anyone supposed to listen to this country lawyer from Maine?" So let's stipulate that we don't know anything about which we speak... (Makes BWE seem like a proposition in futility, but what the hey...)

But on a point-by-point basis:

1) It sounds like a) Whuzzup hasn't posted here in a while, so we can't exactly read his take on premox from extant BWE posts, and b) he's in the auction business, and there might just be a lot of sketchy white burg lots that need to be flogged...

2) Why do you think that any of the wines Gail and I bring to BWE events aren't counterfeits? Just because we say it's a bottle of '89 Petrus doesn't mean it is. You've seen the empties in our kitchen. Hell, after I throw the best we have in the cellar into the mix, you cleave to your '89 Lynch Bages like a talisman... Hmmm... Maybe you're right and all these other wines are suspect... But please refer to the stipulations above...

3) Please tell me the resource(s) that you would use to identify all of the years that Figeac (or any other house) has declassified since 1855? The vinography of any particular Burgundy house would seem at least an order of magnitude more difficult to nail down. I think that the task of identifying wines that were not made might be a challenging one. Also, see (1)(b) above.

4) As best I can tell, the entire California wine community has decided that the slightest, perhaps even imperceptible level of brett means that a wine is totally flawed, bordering on disgusting. If you've ever enjoyed the "Cordier funk" of any 70's, 80's or 90's Gruaud Larose or Talbot, then you're not in that club. To my taste, Montelena has long had a bit of brett, but at a level that makes the wine more interesting. The fact that Jim Laube decides that "brett is the devil" at some arbitrary point in time has absolutely nothing to do with Montelena wines before or after JL had this particular epiphany. No lifelong friends of Saul of Tarsus would have recognized him as the epistolary Paul. JScott, and anyone else who has enjoyed Montelena before Laube's conversion, will continue to enjoy the estate's terrific, "California-flag-waving" style of wine.

Your witness, counselor...

[JimHow]

You guys are completely missing my point. My point is very uncomplicated. My point is not that there is no such thing as premox. I don't drink much white Burg but from what it sounds like here, there is a problem. The point I'm trying to make almost has nothing to do with cork or premox. My point is that there is no such thing as an expert when it comes to wine. One expert may think a wine is tannic and stern, another expert thinks the same wine is soft and fruity. There have been blind tastings where so called experts have not been able to identify between white and red wines. People like Whuzzup have risen to the heights of the wine world, but his experiences with the premox problem appear to be vastly different than what I'm reading about here. (And Whuzzup may have only posted here twice in the past year, but I'm confident his comments about premox (or the lack thereof) have been within the past year and a half.) So what is it? Is there a premox problem or is there not? And if Whuzzup is "wrong" on this point, who's to say he's not wrong about the millions of dollars of other wines he is selling? But maybe he's not the one who is wrong. Maybe it is the groupthink here and on Squires that is wrong. What do the other so called experts say about premox? If I'm reading Tanzer's comments accurately, he too may not be thinking the premox problem is as prevalent as others. What does Burghound say? What does He Who Shall Remain Nameless have to say? Is whatever Parker has to say influenced by the problems he's had with the winemakers in Burgundy? If he is avoiding Burgundy, is that ethical for a person of such influence? Again, my point is not that there are no such things as cork or premox. My point is that there is such a wide degree of difference on the spectrum among critics that, in my opinion, it renders wine commentary almost useless. And if wine criticism is basically a fraud-- if the emperor has no clothes-- then in my opinion it actually becomes dangerous in a way, because rating points are affecting the flow of many millions of dollars in both the retail and auction markets-- not to mention the profits of winemakers, the paychecks of workers in the vineyards, the health of local economies, etc. And when you take into consideration an auction industry that has apparently sold tens of millions of dollars of fraudulent bottles, in my mind this whole industry is a fraud. In my opinion, you can't say Ben Nelson doesn't know what he is talking about on white Burg premox, but that he is an expert on the other ten million dollars of wine he is selling. You can't say that Robert Parker doesn't know a Hardy Rodenstock wine but that he does somehow know du Tertre should get a 90 (and thus more money) as opposed to an 89 (and thus less money), or vice versa. If Robert Parker can't tell me when i'm drinking a million dollar Hardy rodenstock fraud, why should i believe him when he tells me that Chateau Gloria deserves 90+ points as opposed to 87? John Kapon's opinion can't be so profound on the one hand that his scores should be posted on cellartracker, yet he is so non-expert, apparently, that Ponsot himself has to fly to NYC to stop what was apparently an obvious sale of counterfeit wines. This whole endeavor of wine criticism is more than 90 percent bullshit, and I get a kick out of it when people get so full of themselves and take themselves so seriously about this stuff or think that their opinion is more valuable than someone else's.

[DavidG]

Jim, you can't condemn all of the experts based only on the mistakes they've made. That's just logically flawed. You have to take into account the calls that they got right, and come to a judgment on how accurate they are. You have focused only on their shortcomings, which all of us admit they have. You may conclude that ALL of their opinions are worthless. Most would disagree with that conclusion, and it doesn't take mass hysteria to explain it.

Oh, God, the "simple country lawyer" line raises its ugly head again, which forces me to respond:

Jim How, BD of Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts and recipient of praise from RMP Jr. himself, can't identify his favorite wine, 1989 Lynch Bages, in a blind tasting. Why should we listen to anything he has to say?

See how ridiculous that sounds? Discounting everything you have to say about wine based on a few faux pas, regardless of magnitude, just makes no sense. We discount what you have to say on a case by case basis, and in this case, when you say no one knows anything, you're wrong. At least according to me, who also can't identify '89 Lynch Bages in a blind tasting, so take that for what it's worth.

[DavidG]

Jacques, my only purpose in raising the TCA issue in this thread was that the end result is a ruined bottle, and the consumer loses out. Agree that they are completely different issues.

[JimHow]

You're too forgiving of the wine trade, David.
First of all, unlike the snobs here and on Squires, I don't take myself too seriously. I'm willing to laugh at myself as much as I laugh at James Suckling, something that most people in the uptight world of wine tasting are incapable of doing. (I was actually glad I misidentified the Lynch at Tom's house back in '07, it made for a good laugh. Do you really think I care whether I can identify '89 Lynch in a blind tasting, or whether it is better than the '89 Haut Brion, etc.? (rolls eyes)). Maintaining a level of irreverence has helped to avoid the nauseating arrogance and self importance I see on Squires and other sites, but, as I've been saying lately, there is a squiresness that has seeped in here in the past year or two. As for the auction houses, saying they are good some of the time is like saying OJ was good some of the time, just pay no attention to that vicious double homicide back in '94.... If auction houses are regularly putting out bottles that they knew or should have known are counterfeit-- no matter how much "as-is" fine print they may have in the back of their catalogues-- then it taints everything else they do.

[Comte Flaneur]

What I find incredible is that they haven't (a) definitively identified what has caused the problem and then (b) eliminated it. Surely the technology and brainpower exists?Together with the failure to capture Osama Bin laden this is the biggest scandal of the first decade of the 21st century (rather than climate change and premox denial).

[JimHow]

No kidding huh Comte, we can recreate Genesis in underground supercolliders, but can't find a tall skinny guy living in a cave...

[finner]

I don't drink a whole lot of white burgundy or chablis, but I'm thinking that there are different levels of premox, the same as there are different levels of cork taint and brettiness. Add to that, the fact that different people have different senstivities (or aversions) to each of these "flaws", and it does get a little dicey. Premox is not a digital problem (i.e. some subjectivity exists).

[RDD]

What I find incredible is that they haven't (a) definitively identified what has caused the problem and then (b) eliminated it. Surely the technology and brainpower exists?Together with the failure to capture Osama Bin laden this is the biggest scandal of the first decade of the 21st century (rather than climate change and premox denial).

I don't think they've identified all the different components in a wine yet. Some 250+ if memory servers me correctly.
But you hit the crux of the matter.
There is no scientific measurements for these characteristics or flaws. We have to rely on subjective senses and the conveyance of those senses through the English language.
And that's what Jim was hinting at I think. If we can't quantify we rely on expert opinion. And if they are easily fooled we end up with a Rosanna Rosanna Dana. You don't know what you got.

I just like numbers.

[Houndsong]

If all wine were served blind, with rare exception I think we all would have abandoned this hobby long ago.

[Comte Flaneur]

Jim - I wish you were here tonight.

I just opened a Comtes Lafon Mersault Clos De la Barre 1999, which was suspiciously cheap (Comtes Lafon is perhaps one of the most celebrated producers)

The colour looked OK, and then the nose, has that honetcomb, barley sugar, maderised note and on the palate it was worse...then insipid and sherry-like. I think this fell off its perch recently but it is definitely poxed. I then opened one of the dynamite 06 Anglada Deleger Chassagnes (see Tribeca thread)...and comparing the two it was very easy to understand the difference between a poxed and a non poxed white burgundy. I would confidently predict that 95 out of 100 people could tell the difference.

One was maderised sherry like and tired; the other vibrant and full of zest.

[JimHow]

I'm sure you are right, comte. I wonder if the vice president of Hart Davis Wines would agree with you.

[DavidG]

You're too forgiving of the wine trade, David.

I'm not trying to apologize for mistakes and failure to do due diligence on the part of the industry when it comes to fake auction bottles. But I am forgiving of people - amateurs or professionals - misidentifying wines or flaws. I actually agree with you that anyone can screw up, I just don't think that means that they are always or usually wrong. At least not on identifying flaws or generally describing wines. But trying to identify specific wines by tasting is incredibly hard. Which is why tasting should never be considered an acceptable means of verification.

Anyway, keep poking away at the excess seriousness, it keeps things interesting around here.

[RDD]

The vice president of Hart Davis Wines must be wrong then.

Let me see....

Ben Nelson, vice president of Hart Davis Wines, can't identify an oxidized white Burg.

...

Ben is actually the president of Consignment division.
I'm going to email him and see if he'll participate.
Maybe his opinion has changed and maybe it hasn't.

[stefan]

That hurts, Ian; "suspiciously cheap" for Lafon translates to "cost a lot". One of the first pre-moxed white Burgundies I came across was Comtes Lafon Mersault Clos De la Barre 1996 which I ordered off the menu at Sally Clarke's restaurant. For a moment I had trouble believing my own senses, that a young white Burg from a great producer could have sherry characteristics.

stefan

[Comte Flaneur]

That hurts, Ian; "suspiciously cheap" for Lafon translates to "cost a lot". One of the first pre-moxed white Burgundies I came across was Comtes Lafon Mersault Clos De la Barre 1996 which I ordered off the menu at Sally Clarke's restaurant. For a moment I had trouble believing my own senses, that a young white Burg from a great producer could have sherry characteristics.

stefan

That was annoying but not altogether surprising. What was more upsetting was my corked bottle of Ch Haut Brion 1988.

Yes this was something like $80 next to other Lafons costing over $200. Should have known better. The Bonneau du Martray 1998 was at a giveaway price = 90% chance of being poxed.

[Tom In DC]

An Etienne Sauzet 2002 Puligny-Montrachet (village) tonight with some golfing buddies and spouses. One of the golfers asked "Will this come back with more time?" Sadly, the answer is no, this wine is premox-ed...

[Tom In DC]

I think white Burg prem-ox might be a better established fact than global warming...

[jal]

What are we really expecting from so-called experts?

Integrity - obviously, Parker had it but has lost it lately. ITB people, for the most part, should refrain from reviewing wines.
Skill - what's the point of calling yourself an expert if you can't identify a corked wine?
Experience - don't pass yourself for an expert unless you have tasted thousands of wines

And for me, that may be it. Numeric ratings are a gimmick. Descriptions of wines are important to gauge what the experts like and how to calibrate our palate to theirs.

The only experts worth listening are right here on BWE. I would rather buy I wine based on Stefan's, Tom's or Ian's recommendation than on any paid expert's.

[Claudius]

Guys,
premox is simply a fault, like acetic acid, brett or TCA taint.
Some people can't easily recognise TCA but it can easily be chemically identified.
Unfortunately I CAN detect it and the 2000 Chassagne Montrachet Caillerets I opened yesterday was definitely corked.....
At least the bugger wasn't premoxed as if that would have helped.

You may also note that a LOT of diseases are ideopathic.
In other words, we know they kill you but don't know how.
The dead body is still dead I'm afraid.
And a lot of drugs work yet the actual physiological pathways are not known.
Yet they still work.

Yet many growers never had premox problems, others had it really bad.

I have had a lot of premoxed white Burgundies and if anyone thinks a 5 year old, perfectly stored case of CM 1er Cru for example should be bright pink in colour and smell rancid can have it for free.