TN: 1996 Lamarche Vosne-Chaumes

Since there were complaints about there not being enough Burgundy content here… neener

Decanted an hour ahead and drunk over an hour or more.

Beautiful, tightly wound red cherry on the nose. Very Vosne in its flavor profile and elegance. There’s a lot there, but it still feels like it’s crammed into its package. Seems like it needs another five year at a minimum. Or maybe another hour or two of decanting.

In the mouth, the same taught red cherries carry over, with a big lashing of acid. There are solid tannins, but there’s enough fruit that they don’t really stand out. The acid does, however – enough to detract.

I served this with a very moist pork loin stew with fennel and a bit of tomato which did not serve the wine well. This is still young enough, and the acids are so prominent, that it needs a roast, game or grilled meats. Another bottle was more approachable six years ago, probably because of the food. I gave that 93+. This one I’d give about 89. There’s a lot of fruit there, so I think this will flesh out a bit with more time.

great note John.

I had variable luck with my 96s, and I had a lot of them.
The first Malconsorts was rock star good, and the next 3 were all over the place, and none were great, but 2 were good.
The Grand Crus were even more variable. I still have Grand Rue, hoping those are as stinky as the first one.

I don’t know whether you had food with them, Ian. I find that high acid wines sometimes have a narrow range of food compatibilities and you have to be careful what you serve them with. I’m pretty sure that explains the different showings of the two bottles of the 96 Chaumes.