Roumier Tasting

I will start with a brief detail of my impressions of Domaine Roumier taken from the evening and then address each wine tasted further down.

Roumier’s wines are marked by a piercing, precise and pure fruit. Tannins in all of the wines are put on equal footing with the fruit. Structure is as powerful and important to the overall expression of their wines. Spicy, smokey (at times metalic) and sauvage characteristics accent the wines and reveal the incorporation of stems in each cuvée.

Moving from the Villages to the 1er crus to the Grand crus is a journey marked by subtle changes; nuances rather than a shift in paradigm.

A durable and demanding structure imparts a certain strict nature in the wines. Fruit is restrained but well judged and juxtaposed against the structure rather than being overt or pushed ahead as a sole purpose of the wines.
House style, the approach to translating the terroir through the expression of each wine, at chez Roumier is pensive and calculated. The same approach is demanded of the drinker. The wines do not give freely but, rather, invite you to spend time discovering their facets and characteristics.

The wines defy age. Roumier’s wines were identifiable in each flight if by nothing else their being the least advanced wine of the group.

The Tasting

Twenty amateurs gathered to consider eighteen different wines during four hours. A white wine to “envinage” the three glasses was followed by seven flights of two to three wines each flight. Flights consisted of wines from the same vineyard, the same year but different winemakers. Ringers (year or vineyard) were not to be ruled out. Each flight was served blind and the results were revealed after the wines were tasted and discussed over roughly 15 minutes. All of the wines were opened earlier in the afternoon and allowed to breathe but they were not decanted. Serving temperature was a fresh 13degC/56degF.

Envinage

• Maçon Verze 2012, Nicolas Maillet

Flight One

• Corton-Charlemagne Grand Cru 2001, Roumier
  Arvine Vieille Vigne 2007, Phusis
  Corton-Charlemagne Grand Cru 2001, Pavelot

Flight Two

• Gevrey-Chambertin 2001, Claude Dugat
  Chambolle-Musigny 2001, Roumier

Flight Three

• Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Charmes 2000, Perrot-Minot
  Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Charmes 2000, Hudelot-Noellat
  Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Cras 2001, Roumier

Flight Four

• Ruchottes-Chambertin Grand Cru 2000, Roumier
  Ruchottes-Chambertin Grand Cru Clos des Ruchottes 2001, Rousseau
  Mazoyeres-Chambertin Grand Cru 2000, Perrot-Minot

Flight Five

• Bonnes-Mares Grand Cru 2001, Roumier
  Bonnes-Mares Grand Cru 2001, Vogue

Flight Six

• Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Amoureuses 1998, Roumier
  Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Amoureuses 2001, Vogue

Flight Seven

• Musigny Grand Cru 1996, Vouge
  Musigny Grand Cru 1996, Roumier

Tasting Notes
What follows is less traditional than a catalogue of tasting notes opting for a more unconventional discussion.

The Maçon was not a terribly recognisable chardonnay. I found it to be slightly tropical and with a tea leaf note that made me think of whites from further south.

The Cortons were perfect. Both were showing notes of fresh pears with Roumier’s tending towards green apples and Pavelot’s towards lemon curd. Roumier’s had a profound toasted bread and butter character. Pavelot’s never tread beyond the cooler fruit characteristics. The Arvine won roughly half the votes as wine of the flight. It has a slightly lime character with notes of peach and apricots. It was honeyed and slightly oaky. Still sound and plenty of fuel left in the tank for this Valaisin. Hop Suisse.

I half expected the first wine of the second flight to be a Gevrey as it exhibited a terrific animal / venison characteristic. It sat on the opposite end of the spectrum from Roumier’s Chambolle which honored its fresh strawberries, groseilles vertes and spicy cassis. I liked the Dugat just fine. It was tannic, profound and muscular, ripe plums and cherries. Roumier’s wine was terrifically youthful, poised and elegant while retaining a very fine and present tannin. I preferred Roumier’s less ripe version but would happily welcome Dugat to my table.

The third flight was ever so slightly confusing. The Perrot-Minot was not appreciated by most of the participants. It had its merits but was marked by ripeness, extraction and oak. The HN was pretty advanced and carried a certain fraise de bois, beef broth and animal characteristic which made it interesting and appetising. Roumier’s Cras was a baby. It was a ball of fruit and, to my tasting, the most fruit forward wine in his line up. It tasted like a 2008 I drank on release. This fruit forwardness threw me for a curve but discussion around the table pointed out the slightly stemmy spice, the tannic structure and the purity of the fruit to identify it. HN’s wine was mysterious and intreaguing but Roumier’s was clearly the stronger candidate for wine of the flight.

The fourth flight was slightly disappointing. Roumier’s version was fine but missing a bit on the palate. Rousseau’s version seemed too advanced and it retained a good deal of evidence of vanilla oak. Both wines were aromatically compelling and the nose and each justified the GC status. Perrot-Minot’s wine followed trajectory of the last flight and became more marked by extraction, ripeness and oak. The 1er from PM was still “correct” if not to my taste. Their GC in this flight was too “cola” to be considered well made. It was a toss up between Roumier and Rousseau with my vote going to the more vibrant and energetic Roumier. Rousseau’s version still melded nicely with the oak and provided an interesting reference to Roumier’s amplified pure fruit style.

The fifth through seventh flights were very interesting as the wine makers remained consistent. Both domaines have a house style and it was evident throughout. As for style I find Vogue’s wines marked by a lait cuit / caramel note on the nose that is distracting. Next to Roumier it served to enhance the crystalline pure fruit of Roumier’s wines. Vogue’s wines are pure silk, almost sensual on the palate. Roumier’s wines continued to demand time and patience and a certain restraint in approaching them. Vogue’s were welcoming and friendly.

I preferred Bonnes Mares to Amoureuses. The former had dimension and depth that went beyond the latter. Could it be vintage? I adored the way the Bonnes Mares evolved over time. Amoureuses is impressive in its dense, compact fruit that seems to carry its own gravity in the wine. Bonnes Mares doesn’t have this intense focus of fruit but it more than compensates with wild, herbal and floral notes that more fully complete the wine.

Musigny. Yes. Wine of the night. It is the fruit of Amoureuses but the completeness of Bonnes Mares. It is the most marked by stems in the entire line up. It is as round as Cras, it has as much gravitas as Amoureuses, it has as many facets as Bonnes Mares. Vogue’s version was easily the best in their game. It was noticeable that it was the best in Roumier’s as well but less obviously. I kept half my Bonnes Mares to compare and the two wines shared many similarities. Musigny went further but it did so discreetly. Effortlessly.
Monumental tasting and a sincere pleasure to participate.

A truly educational experience.

Great write up, Paul.

Great read sir

Thanks Paul - I am a huge Roumier fan so this was a captivating read. Alas, the wines have gotten so expensive I don’t buy them anymore, but each that I open is terrific. Notes like yours are the next best thing annd give me a glimpse of what the wines are like. I too love the purity of fruit and the effortless intensity.

Pleasure to share the notes. Thanks for looking past the crumby format. I am on a BlackBerry in Transylvania today. I had plenty of time to scratch together some notes from last night while on the flight.

I still manage to get a bottle of BM and a few Cras for reasonable prices. I understand Musigny is €700 x-domaine now. And Christophe deserves that if the wines sell on secondary for $5k.

It is a very unique domaine and the wines are individual without trying to be different. I’ve heard a lot of very complimentary gossip about Christophe being sighted in the vineyards in rain, sleet, snow and heat waves. To my mind that is where the wines begin their journey in differentiating themselves from others…

Great event and notes, Paul.
Two points resonate with me. The “lait cuit” on the nose of Vogue–I’ve never been able to aptly describe this note, and I think you’re on to something.
And when drinking three vintages of Roumier last month, I wrote at the bottom of my notes, “crystalline purity.” The pure, crisp fruit is remarkable.

You give me an idea, Paul…when 7/18 wines are from Roumier and someone calls it “Roumier Tasting”…imagine the possibilities.

Interesting tasting to read about, though 20 people/20 wines in 4 hours is beyond my concentration abilities. But, not sure what/how to glean much about Roumier, per se, from it. I couldn’t.

I think I would have gleaned more about Roumier if the wines had been limited to Roumier wines, as the title of the thread suggests.

Was the event billed as a “Roumier tasting”?

And, IMO, Roumier’s greatness requires aging to show. Almost as much as any great winery in Burgundy, their wines don’t show that well under 20 years or so…then…really show their stuff. I’ve learned this lesson through lots of mistakes with them over the years. (Based on my own miscalculations about how long great Burgs “need”, which I grossly underestimated years ago when I started.)

this guy!!

How very undemocratic of you Stuart. Roumier had the majority so it was a “Roumier Congress”.

Yes it was billed as a Roumier Tasting. And yes I do agree that, provided his wines were the consistent element in each flight, it is a perfectly acceptable title for the event.

I don’t disagree that 4 hours went by in a big hurry. I would have preferred half the people and fifty percent more time. It wasn’t my event so I didn’t get to call the shots. I still found the pours and the pace to be acceptable. I had sufficient time to understand the wines for that moment. Would they have changed if they were 2x the pour and allowed to stay with me for a few hours? Of course. I probably got shorted on evaluating where these wines might go but I certainly had time to understand where they were now.

As for the age of the wines I admit, in the case of the Roumier’s, that they were all too young and will improve with additional years. That didn’t limit my experience or cause me to learn less about the wines.

This wasn’t a turbotasting event with seconds per glass and hundreds of pours. It was a very focused consideration of 7 of Roumier’s wines in the context of other great burgundies at a 10-15 year mark. I’d say that on the whole the event was valuable as an insight to the Domaine and constructive to my continued education in wine.

I believe you , Paul. I think you had to “be there” to see its perfection as a “Roumier” tasting.

Was John Kerry there,too, during a break form Iran nuclear negotiations?

Great write up. Many thanks.

Excellent write up. Often one wishes during such events that there was more time on our side to taste them more leisurely.

Great stuff Paul. An excellent write up, and pleased to say that I own a number of those. Last time I was offered Roumier BM was from 2001 vintage, likewise Vogue Moose.
As an aside in the latest Gourmet Traveller Wine Magazine released in Oz this week, there is an article by English scribe Neil Aitken on the 2013 red Burg vintage and within that article he rates the vintages from 1999. Lo and behold he bestowed the 2001 vintage with a mere 2 stars (out of 5), with only 2004 worse at 1 star ie the second worst vintage in his assessment. I have always enjoyed the 2001 vintage and own a few big guns from that vintage as they were easy to procure at the time. Admittedly the wines seem to have been in a bit of a hole for the lst couple of years, but this rating did surprise me. Different strokes for different blokes I guess!

Forget the leisurely. I’d just like to taste a Roumier Musigny …

Prompted by another thread, and against my instincts to let Burgundies from good vintages age a minimum of 20 years to show what they have, I opened a 2001 Mugneret NSG"Les Chaignots" Sunday night. (And, also because my Chevillons are buried under other boxes.) The wine is showing some decent maturing at age 13+ and, IMO, the elements are there…given a full 20, unfortunately, to really please. A little astringency in the form of dominant acidity made the fruit succulent…but will serve it well in the future. The fruit is plenty good enough. Small sample for this “Mugneret Tasting”, but I saw enough to make me unconcerned enough to leave the rest slumber. (IMO, 2001 will never compete with the completeness of 2002, but…will be very good at the least.)

Which mugneret?

Dr. Georges…does any other “Mugneret” make a Nuits “Chaignots”?..I don’t know.

Btw,- is the 1992 Domaine Mugneret-Gibourg Vosne-Romanée ready? High fill …

I would guess so…but would open in advance in case it needed aeration. '92 was a vintage I wish I’d bought, but didn’t. It was pleasant enough and most were probably “ready” at 20, so they would have been useful. At the time, I thought 15 years was plenty for a good vintage. (Oh. and if this is an April Fool’s trick question: “Mugneret-Gibourg”…did it exist then as a label…and, if so, on the VR villages? Not sure, probably did; some were Dr. Georges Mugneret, like the Ruchottes and CV.)

Becky Wasserman did a tasting here in fall 1994 with a bunch of them from her producers. They were all pleasant. Not sure why I didn’t follow-up.

Thanks Stuart ! Well, OK, I’ll give it a try this weekend …

Great line-up Paul thanks for the notes!