I’ve had so many bad PremOx experiences over the last few years, I give up. '96 Leflaive ‘Chevalier Montrachet’ and ‘Pucelles’, 1999 Coche ‘Mersault Perrieres’, 2002 Lafon ‘Mersault Perrieres’, and others.
So my new rule, everything has to be drunk within a 10 year window.
Ramifications (for me) for this new rule.
Got to buy less, since my real drinking window is 6 years - 10 years from vintage.
I own 4-5 cases now that are beyond that window. Mostly things I’ve saved for some great day. Leroy, Leflaive, Niellon, Coche, Dauvissat, Lafon, etc. Got to either sell it or drink it.
So, based on #2, every night is a White Burg night around these parts.
Sucks. I quit buying about 9 years ago. Just not worth the frustration. Unless I plan on drinking within THREE years and that means no Grand Crus. Sorry for your losses.
Know the feeling, although I’ve rarely had problems with my Leflaive 96,99,00,02 GC’s.Not really buying GC’s anymore because of inventory, but expect my kids and I to drink the new lower end whites in the next 3-5 yrs with some of the 1er crus a little later.Such a shame. I’ve always loved great aged white burgs. Once in a while I try to buy some pre 1990’s ( 86/5/3/2 ) at auction when the color is good.Agree, premox sucks
FWIW, I decided a long time ago to let WB age out as I would have before premox. I see little difference between a young premoxed wine and and an aged premoxed wine. If it’s there…it will show up very early.And, drinking them young precludes any chance that one can have an aged WB experience that we all strive for.
I bought them to age out…and will let them, even with the risk. So far, so good, but…for me the prime time for the mid-late '90s vintages are coming up…and…I am prepared for some bad ones. But, I have hope of some upside still.
I would never have bought such wines to drink under 10 years old. A good Macon would be just as good for me.
My view, FWIW.
The real shame is that the industry has not figured out a cure/cause…or stood behind the plagued products.
Commiserate and painfully agree about premox, and with everyone’s posts here about this scourge.
My choice as this worlds greatest beverage and as my go to drink for what was an eternity, but like many I’ve made the sharpest turn towards Champagne, and my reality is and has been for quite a while- " Champagne, the new white burgundy."- Thie above quote was below my signature on the Parker Board many years ago.
I’ve been numbed for so long about Premox and its appalling and continuing disappointments that I think and drink less and less white burgundy even with a cellar full of pre 95’s.
One bit of advise for you all is to drink your treasured bottles of white burgundy in the much cooler months.
My experience is white burgundy slumps badly in the summer and in the humidity. I’m not sure why but I’ve attended many tastings and dinners in the summer and the wines performed badly.
Repeated in the cooler months and the results resoundingly different and better to great.
I still buy Raveneau GC’s and a few others GC Chablis and some Chevalier for immediate consumption. Many 09’s are yummy and last week drank a pretty great Raveneau Valmur 10 in Portland Maine…*
I too have sharply curtailed purchases of WB and Chablis and am buying more Champagne.
I think continuing to buy a premium product and drinking it when too young is getting ripped off, when much less expensive Chardonnay producers can provide a similar drinking experience in the first few years of life. It’s better to not purchase WB and if enough of us do it, perhaps the producers will feel the pain finally and start to actually try to solve the problem instead of paying it lip service while cashing our checks.
I don’t think there’s much difference between drinking a wine at 7-8 years and at 15 or more years in terms of premox. If a wine is going to premox, not many are going to wait to do it at 11 years. I’ve long espoused what Stuart is saying. If you are actually going to buy these wines(which I no longer do), you might as well keep them to “maturity” and experience what they are really about, and take your premox lumps. If you are going to drink them early, far better off to buy satisfying village wines.
As much as it pains me to agree with Stuart…this makes sense. I have absolutely no empirical evidence. Based on limited exposure…it seems unlikely that an immaculate wine at 7 - 10 years will suddenly devolve. My experience has been that young premoxed wines are noticeably headed down the wrong road after a couple of years…well down the road at 7 - 10 and game-over after that.
Knowing the magical experience that a great GC White Burg can provide…it’s too painful IMHO to sacrifice them young. Does buying them really make sense unless you’re willing to go long?
I opened my two bottles of 08 Dominique Lafon Meusault earlier this year, and both were premoxed. I think 10 years is too big a window, I’d probably suggest 6 or 7.
I don’t think the problem is going away, mostly because I don’t think its a problem to the producers. Do you see any urgency, or any softening of demand or prices? If anything, it seems the opposite.
Personally, I think the wines are now being made in a riper and softer style that makes them drinkable young, sell well, but doesn’t resist oxidation. Which, if true, would mean we shouldn’t expect the problem to go away. Though screwcaps might allow them to have it both ways, if adopted.
Nothing older than 2007 in my cellar, although that’s just as much my impatience as the problematic issue. However, I shudder when I see any older vintage and it would have to be a very attractive price indeed—or come from the LCBO or something where I could guaranteed take it back and get a refund or exchange or something. It is definitely a shame since I’ve had all too few of the haunting experiences an older white burg can deliver.
Chet, glad to have your impression about drinking them in winter vs. summer—I’ll try to remember to track performance that way.
I do think the frequency of premox that I’ve experienced thus far is not as great as it might seem from reading this and other threads.
Before I stopped buying WB, with the 2006 vintage (though I bought Dauvssat for a few after that), I focused on 5-6 producers…and, except for one of them, haven’t been hit too hard.
Don Cornwell’s WIKI, though well intentioned…I think can make one think the prevalence is greater than it is, as I learned a couple of years ago, that many people posting there only posted their bad experiences. I posted both and had assumed everyone had, but…there was a thread on WB that made me realize the results were weighted toward mainly bad experiences. People just didn’t bother to post their ok ones, unfortunately.
I wonder if the WB “industry”…producers and importers, mainly…have really felt any of the pain we have though? I certainly think many of them should…for not being able to figure out the problem or a cure in these last 20 vintages since the problem’s been around. That , to me, is the real disappointment.
Yes, the Wiki is a good example of the problem of negative bias. I have had my share of disappointments with her Crus and Grand Crus being premoxed, but also found some truly great wines at good prices because of it. I think the auction market reflects a discount for it except with respect to a relatively small number of producers. and I still buy them occasionally if I find good prices and my research doesn’t turn up terrible results. On balance, I think this system has worked out pretty well for me.
I used to follow the research and commentary on the problem, but stopped. I have come to view premox as the new normal.
I not only don’t sense any pain, softening of pricing/demand, or sense of urgency from the producers, I think the opposite is happening. Which is part of the reason I’ve come to the belief I have about the problem - the “problem” is that the wines are now being made in a gentler, riper, fleshier, less acidic style which drinks well early and has a much broader appeal, but which doesn’t resist oxidation consistently.
And if my guess is correct, the “problem” isn’t a problem at all to the producers - buyers love the wines in this style, the satisfied customers who drink the wines young probably outweigh the collectors fretting about multi-decade aging potential in a huge way, demand and pricing are strong and getting stronger, so what’s the problem? You might as well ask Caymus if they’re worried about how the 40th will hold up 15 years from now.
I understand the best white Burgs can develop in fabulous ways with extended aging, but when was the last young white Burg that wasn’t at least drinking well? They seem ripe, they have tropical fruits (even Chablis, and even wines not from the ripest vintages), the acids are fresh but not anywhere near overbearing. When I first got into wine, I remember young white Burgs would be almost painfully and searingly acidic, and they often would reveal very little hint of fruit until they matured - I can’t remember the last time I tried a white Burg that struck me that way.
[Caveats: (1) I don’t buy Grand Crus, so maybe they are not crowd-pleasers in their youth the way village and Premier Cru whites seem to be these days, and (2) it’s also possible it’s just that my palate has changed in the last 20 years, and my memory of how young whites tasted back in the 1990s is not accurate.]
Maybe luck but I’ve never had a flawed bottle of Champagne that was purchased at or close to release. Champagne has to have the lowest fail rate of any of the worlds great wines.
Your guess may have been correct for many wines made between 1995 and 2005, but I think it’s no longer correct. Many producers have changed their style that went into the a quite rich direction in the time period I was referring to. I don’t know what wines you are referring to when you say
When I first got into wine, I remember young white Burgs would be almost painfully and searingly acidic
But that sounds like not really great and underripe examples to me and not what I’m looking for when I buy white burgundy of a certain standard, except maybe Chablis Village or Petit Chablis. Great white burgundy to me is about intensity, energy and - not to forget - the ability to absorb some malolactic fermentation without tasting flabby and to have enough structure to absorb ageing in oak casks.
I have long felt that prem-ox, and , especially the random occurance of premox within a given case of WB was an issue of the closures (not providing a good seal; that silicone was used to make them easier to pull on the corks made them rigid and less able to form a good seal like the softer, parrafin coated corks did). Of course, the wines might be more vulnerable, too, but…that doesn’t account for the randomness of its effect. That Champagne uses a wholly different style cork…if you’re right about Champagne having a low “fail rate”…it might confirm the cork as culprit.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}