A hard Bourgogne tasting

[Nicklasss]

I had a small Bourgogne tasting on Wednesday, with my tasting group. Unfortunately, the wines presented were not as good as the last few bottles of Bourgogne I opened, from the 2009 vintage. That burst a little bit ''the bubble'' i had lately with Bourgogne.

2003 Nuits-Saint-Georges 1er Cro Roncière from Robert Chevillon : Strong effect of the vintage on that wine, that seemed atypical to me. But it was any way my favorite, as it maintain quite well it qualities for over 3 hours. Dark red color, the wine is not clear, but some trouble, with light brown rim. Nose was quite interresting, with a strong dark cranberries aromas, goosen berries, cherries, meat, some fur, earth, soft red pepper and ripe berries. Nice complex nose. In mouth, started as a masculine wine, but became fat and genrous quickly. Some dry raisins, plums, rich fruit with low acidity, long, medium level of tanins, long aftertaste of dark berries. At the end, even a bit jammy. Very good in that extreme vintage, but I would like to taste that wine on a more ''conventionnal'' Bourgogne vintage. TN : 90. I bought that bottle in Boston in 2005, as that producer is not available in Québec.

2009 Volnay 1er Cru Santenots from Rebourgeon-Mure : Too young. My comment could stop here. It was extremely fruity and closed. no complexiity yet. clear red cherry color, the wine possess some nice strong vanilla, cherry candy, fruits confits, redberries. Unidimensional and strong. Oak in mouth, strong strawberries, light touch of alcohol, low acidity on final mixed with wood/oak. Hard to rate, need minimum 5 years. TN : 84+?.

2004 Santenay Champ claude Vielles Vignes from Lucien Muzard : Strange Bourgogne, extremely vegetal and earthy. Cherry red color with a rim that has a tomato skin red/orange. Nose is weird, with mushrooms, earth mineral that are strong, cherry pit, rock, tobacco, tar. Mouth is better, with dry cherry, dead leaves, tar, redberries, incense. final is still balanced between fruits and some earthy tones. Surely not for everyone. i was personnally a bit puzzled by that wine. TN : 85.

2006 Beaune 1er Cru Clos du Roi from Bouchard Ainé et Fils : Start with nothing, developped very well throught 2-3 hours. Medium red, light trouble. Nose opened up nicely on minerals, bitter cherries, strawberries, light vanilla, and cumin. In mouth, the last glass was the best one. Good fruit, redberries, acidity, red currants, vanilla, minerals, herbs, dark red apples. Really astringent to start, became more civilized with air. Bitter medium finish, on red currants. TN : 86. I would say that wine started with a TN of 84, but finished with a 88.

I don't know if these were just a bad sample, but I really did not feeled any compassion for these wines and none really seduced me. Was it high atmospheric pressure that night? maybe I should check...

Nic

[Ramon_NYC]

Good notes and sorry to read about the hard wines. On the other hand, I’m Chevillon-head and have a few 2003’s stashed away. Good to read that the Les Roncieres is starting to drink well.

I also have to note that your subject title threw me off a bit when I saw the word “Bourgogne”. It’s kind of superficial on my part, but I realized later that your title refers to wines of Burgundy; whereas, I always tend to associate the word “Bourgogne” with the Regional classification that is considered next to (or below) the Village level.

Ramon

[stefan]

No Chevillon in Quebec? You should move to a more civilized Province, Nic.

I think Chevillon did a good job with the available material in both 2003 and 2004.

[dstgolf]

Not sure moving to another province for Chevillon is the answer. Non available in Ontario either. Quebec typically will have a better selection of French wines than Ontario and especially Burgundian wines. I remember Stefan being big on Ramonet and never heard of it before or seen it in Ontario. I've certainly enjoyed a few bottles visiting Chicago and Bradenton. Not all bad though there certainly isn't a shortage of great wines these days from all corners of the world.


Danny

[Claudius2]

Guys - I'm also a chevillon fan but they are getting to be very expensive.

A few comments:
I find 03 to be too raisiny for me. Some are better than others, but like Bordeaux, I am not a fan of the vintage and have sold off most of the 03s I bought after trying them.
On the other hand, 04 is a disaster. They are not just puzzling, most are not very pleasant to drink and they have not got better. The fruit lacks depth and intensity, the tannins are peppery and green, and many wines are disjoint and will not improve.
I have higher hopes for 2006 and while it stands in the shadow of 2005, a recent tasting of 06s (as well as a fw other vintages) showed that they are improving.

[JonoB]

Claudius, to write off any Burgundy vintage is like playing with fire...
Plenty that confounded young are wonderful now... 76, 84, 86 and 87 have blossomed where the wines have been of the appropriate standard. Another issue is that really if a Burg is younger than 5 years or older than 15 it will be drinkable (please extrapolate for certain AOC) and on top of this HOT vintages and RIPE vintages will confound this theory. Also, 08 was awfully received and look how they are already showing what they really are!!

Commercially, Burg vintages get tainted with the Bordeaux brush as well.

[Claudius2]

Jono
I do not agree. 2004 IS a disaster.
I have tried about 50 wines from the 2004 vintage and I have yet to find one I'd bother buying (again).
Okay, okay, you may be able to find a few wines that were very good but I have not found them and I would still argue that top wines from 04 are few and far between.
Further, they have not developed well, and the wines I bought have all been perfectly stored.
Most I have sold based on trying them and finding them to be either green, peppery or unbalanced.

For my money, it is the worst vintage since 1994, and possibly 1984.
I am not a lover of 2007 but the wines don;t have that greenish, peppery character.

[JonoB]

Claudius, that is the beauty of wine. I have had some wonderful 84s, 94s from the right people and only age will bear those or has born that to be true. The only across the board consistent Burgundy vintage I've seen is 2005, even in 09 there are many failures.

2004 is right in that uncertain window. It isn't to everyone's tastes and it isn't my favourite. 01, 06, 08 and 10 are more to my liking... All I am saying is that Burgundy ages in strange ways and time always does it favours. For me it is too early to call... However, if you don't like the vintage style, you don't like the vintage style.

[Nicklasss]

I'm sorry for the confusion Ramon, but I always use the ''real'' name of a location, in it language. For the Bourgogne region, (Chablis to Mâconnais), I try to avoid ''Burgundy'' and use ''Bourgogne''. Normally, I consider that these geographical names, like our name, don't translate.

another example, I always call New-York that way, instead of ''Nouvelle-York'', or London is London, and not Londres.

From Claudius comments, i must say that I did not had many 2004, but the ones I had were ''dull''. I still have a few in the cellar (François Lamarche Vosne-romanée 1er Cru, and a Méo-Camuzet Vosne-Romanée 1er Cru les Brûlées), but with not that big hope. But I must say that a 2004 Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Feusselottes from Méo-Camuzet was just excellent to gorgeous!

Nic

[Ramon_NYC]

Nic,

No apologies needed and no need to explain ... I got it and there's nothing wrong with your usage of "Bourgogne" in this post. Again, thanks for the data point on the wines.