Jancis R. Comments on reduction in white burgs: FT

Can you paste the article so we don’t have to register if we don’t want to?

I don’t feel comfortable pasting their content without permission, but the gist of it is Jancis feels white burgs have over corrected the premox issue and are now producing reduced whites that smother the fruit.

There is no f*cking way the premox issue can be over corrected until there is no more premox.

JMHO.

No need to register to read a longer version of the article here:

Very interesting. Rationalises/explains a trend

I always find it interesting that some descriptors of what is “typical” for Coche Dury are clearly sulfur related.

Sebastian, thanks for posting. I normally agree with Jancis in these sort of articles, but not so much on this one.

Premox is still seemingly a huge problem for white Burgs (part of the problem being that, even if it can be fixed, we won’t know that it was for 5-10 years). Sulphur and reductive winemaking generally seems like one of the best insurance policies against premox, so I don’t have a problem with some sulphur on my white Burgs, it reassures me.

Two caveats. I don’t like it where the sulphur is so overdone it dominates the wine on the palate. I have had that with white Burgs. Secondly, as in Australia, there has been a trend in NZ to associate quality Chardonnay with that sulphur element and for winemakers to over-sulphur seemingly as a marketing technique, when the wines don’t need it.

The Lafon quote is funny, cause he’s kind of the poster child for advanced wines in higher end white burgs

Is it true that many years ago young white burgs were initially sulphury? This article is the first I’ve read/ heard of that. If so, when did producers begin to stray away from that production style and why? Chasing the buttery / oak style that was coming out of California in the 90’s or something else?

I’ll tolerate reduction to a certain point but am beginning to find certain producers I have really liked are becoming heavy-handed in that area.

Am I wrong or is sulfur only temporary protection? Isn’t the goal very slow oxidation so as to be able to drink the wine at some maturity without having to check every week for signs of advanced oxidation? Seems like a solution that doesn’t address the real problem or provide safe progress to a more mature white burgundy experience.

I don’t have any idea how reductive winemaking alone affects flattening the maturity curve.

I think you’re right. Isn’t this “Free SO2”, which is intended to consume oxygen? I’d assume it either runs out or there is so much in the wine that it remains sulfur-laden forever. I agree that this doesn’t really get at the heart of the problem.

So doug, explain the difference to all of us. I’ve always felt that the Coche profile was primarily reductive wine-making and often mistakenly attributed to sulfur. I also happen to like Boisson-Vadot, Fichet, and PYCM quite a bit for their reductive profile. For my own purposes, if I’m confused, adding copper seems to help me tell the difference.

Thank you for the article. That`s a good read.
One question remains:
What is the problem when every winemaker does it like Coche Dury or Anne Claude?
I never drank better wines from burgundy.
And if you are intolerant to Sulfur, leave the evil stuff for me…

This is close to true (or, close to my understanding). Oxidation involves two parts: A) a wine molecule gets oxidized and B) the oxidized molecule causes a series of ‘other reactions’ to occur, most of which are increasingly damaging to wine.

Free SO2 doesn’t prevent part A, i.e. it doesn’t prevent the wine molecule from becoming oxidized…but the SO2 does prevent the chain reaction from going very far and limits most/all of the damage.

The other part tho is that oxygen does more in wine than causing oxidation (which is generally bad). Oxygen also plays a role in many of the critical reactions that occur when wine is aging (and fermenting too, but that’s completely different). In an ideal world, the amount of dissolved oxygen in a wine would equally match the wine’s need for oxygen for these reactions. In that case, no (or very very little) oxidation would occur because all the oxygen would be ‘busy doing other things’

Imo, one of the goals of reductive winemaking is to slow down the evolution/development of the wine (by lowering the levels of dissolved oxygen in a wine)…but not so low that too many reductive compounds compounds form. By slowing down the evolution this way, the wine retains a greater ability to absorb/use oxygen while in the bottle and make a longer lived wine.

I can’t remember the history of premox in white burgs, but were the champions of the pre-1995/6 vintage, in terms of rarity of premox, predominantly made in a reductive style?

My understanding is that LeFlaive didn’t have issues until 2002 which would support your statement. Sort of…

+1. His point of view actually explains a lot to me.
Leflaive started having trouble when Pierre Morey left.

I sure am glad to hear that premox is a thing of the past. Guess I can start buying and laying down high end white burgs with abandon. What. A. Relief.

I think we are talking about the same thing. Reductive winemaking can encourage formation of sulfur related compounds. What distinction are you making, and how does adding copper help?