A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Herwig Janssen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 655
Joined: June 19th 2009, 10:02am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #1  Postby Herwig Janssen » February 27th 2017, 6:09am

My wine club Euryanthe got together to taste 12 wines ( Villages and premier cru ) from the much heralded 2005 vintage . We heard the wines were closed , difficult to assess , but " classic " and true Burgundy . Well , these wines were all over the place and I found some of them surprisingly sweet , tasting more like Cote du Rhone . They will no doubt age very well , but I don't think it is a classic vintage like 2010 .
This was a blind tasting ( 10 tasters ) of 6 pairs . We had a unanimous winner which is very unusual .

1. Pure and monolytic , not complex but yummy . 90+/100 DUJAC , Chambolle Villages
2. Already very drinkable , super fine grainy tannins , I love this , 92/100 GEANTET PANSOT Chambolle Villages

3. Sweet , like a CNP , hot with extraction , too much alcohol , nope. 88/100 VOLNAY Taillepieds Marquis d'Angerville
4. Also sweet , very ripe , no pinot character , a good Cote du Rhone for 12 Euro's , 90/100 VOLNAY Taillepieds , de Montille

5. Now this is serious pinot , super complex , delicious finesse , earthy , no power , start drinking now 94/100 GROFFIER Chambolle Haut Doix
6. Blue fruit , darker color , very different style , much more primary , lot's of matiere , will go a long way , 93/100 LUCIEN LE MOINE , Chambolle Haut Doix

7. Animal and earthy , good concentration and lengthy , classic Burgundy and start drinking now : 94/100 MAGNIEN Gevrey Cazetiers
8. Very fresh , lengthy , class wine , beautiful tannins in red fruit , wonderful and my WOTN , 96/100 : ROUSSEAU Gevrey Clos St. Jacques

9. Red fruit with dry tannins which bother me a great deal , lot's of power , less finesse but the dry finish ( like a Barolo ) is wrong NR. Chevillon NSG les Vaucrains
10. Fine very present tannins , power , earthy , very Nuits St G , 92/100. CHEVILLON NSG les Cailles

11. Power , chewy tannins , this is delicious , modern style , not so complex , 94/100 THIBAULT LIGER BELAIR Vosne Romanee Les petits Monts
12. Very very sweet , over the top , sur-mature , funky , too much 91?/100 COMTE LIGER BELAIR Vosne Romanee aux Reignots ( I tasted this wine again later that night and it had improved , still... too sweet for my taste )

Pretty unanimous scores resulted in a top 5 :
1. Rousseau : Clos St Jacques 30 points ( maximum )
2. Robert Groffier Chambolle Musigny les Haut Doix : 17 points
3. Magnien : Gevrey Chambertin les Cazetiers : 5 points
4. Lucien le Moine Chambolle Haut Doix 4 points
5. Chevillon NSG les Cailles : 3 points .

We don't take ourselves too serious so this is just a snap shot assessment . But I was really surprised about the style of SOME of the wines . This is very much une annee solaire , not so classic in style .

Advertisement

User avatar
Max K
(Online)
 
Posts: 273
Joined: August 20th 2016, 2:16pm
Location: Washington, DC

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #2  Postby Max K » February 27th 2017, 6:15am

Great notes, and surprising results from some storied producers. Food for thought with the '15s hitting the market.
Max Kelly
A Songeur
 
Posts: 789
Joined: April 27th 2010, 6:45am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #3  Postby A Songeur » February 27th 2017, 7:14am

Thanks Herwig. Your notes and website are excellent and help me to keep a(little) bit of my Dutch understanding...
I did not know Thibault was making a Vosne petits monts or do you mean Comte?
Antoine
Herwig Janssen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 655
Joined: June 19th 2009, 10:02am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #4  Postby Herwig Janssen » February 27th 2017, 7:27am

Thibault does make a Petits Monts
User avatar
Markus S
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: May 20th 2010, 7:27am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #5  Postby Markus S » February 27th 2017, 8:11am

Not a fan of the sugar, eh?
$ _ € ® e . k @
Barry L i p t o n
(Online)
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: November 8th 2009, 9:59pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #6  Postby Barry L i p t o n » February 27th 2017, 9:32am

Shocked at the d'Angerville notes, thanks for sharing.

Be curious if others have tried and had the same feeling.
Thomas De Waen
 
Posts: 69
Joined: February 6th 2012, 9:52am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #7  Postby Thomas De Waen » February 27th 2017, 10:13am

Not planning on opening any 2005s until 2025... problem with the better vintages is that they take ages to come around. 93s, in a different style, were really not particularly good until 3-4 years ago.

I remember buying a case of Engel brulees 2000 and almost giving up on them around 2009 as they were completely joyless and seemed on the way down. Sold 6 bottles then tried it again around 2012 and it was absolutely glorious. Just an example of how, sadly, red burgundies ageing curve is anything but linear.
User avatar
Patrick Stella
 
Posts: 62
Joined: March 28th 2012, 1:55pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #8  Postby Patrick Stella » February 27th 2017, 10:45am

Thanks for the notes, Herwig. Nice to see you here. Hope you are well.
WineCredit.com
Insta @WineCredit
User avatar
Soren R Nielsen
 
Posts: 694
Joined: March 17th 2016, 8:48am
Location: On, in Copenhagen, Denmark

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #9  Postby Soren R Nielsen » February 27th 2017, 11:09am

Thanks Herwig, for a fine status report of some very different '05 Burgs.
Sounds like some grapes were picked very late ?
I will not be chasing Comte Liger-Belairs, or the Volnays mentioned.

Much appreciated,
Søren.
R. Frankel
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 924
Joined: January 25th 2014, 12:07am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #10  Postby R. Frankel » February 27th 2017, 11:41am

Thanks Herwig, good to see an interesting variety from this vintage. 2005 is really the first vintage that I went pretty big on (though more wide than deep) and I'll be curious to dig into the wines in a few years. To date I've only opened just a few village wines (Arnoux, Bachelet) and found them still fairly closed.
Rich Frankel
Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: April 29th 2010, 1:36pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #11  Postby Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow » February 28th 2017, 12:10pm

Herwig Janssen wrote: They will no doubt age very well , but I don't think it is a classic vintage like 2010 . ..... This is very much une annee solaire , not so classic in style .


Herwig, thanks for the very interesting notes and observations. I guess I am not surprised by your reaction, particularly about the Rhone qualities. I hope you're wrong, but would not be surprised if you were right.

2005, it was clear from the very beginning , was a unique vintage in Burgundy. Therefore, it cannot be a "classic" by definition. It was certainly an ebullient vintage, that almost everyone thought would be "great", though its own personality. I fear (because of my own age) that it might take too long to really know where they are heading, as they have, unlike some Rhones and vintages "solaires", plenty of underlying structure. I wouldn't touch any, except to taste here and there, until 2025. (And, for that reason, I stopped buying red wines after the 2005 vintage.)

The ones I've had in the last several years have been too youthful to tell much of anything, except that they are loaded with ripe fruit. It seems more might be starting to show, from your notes.

All the truly "great" Burgundy vintages are , IMO, not "classic" vintages: 1990 and 2005 are good examples. Those two vintages are held in the highest esteem by winemakers, who define vintages differently from most people here, as the winemakers seem to think of "accross the board" potential...at all levels of the hierarchy. And, those years certainly have that.

I am wondering now what are the "classic" vintages in Burgundy that have turned out very well? 1999 and 2002 come to mind, but so far, it is too early to be sure. And, are they really "classic"?

I'm curious what vintages people "here" consider classic red Burg vintages. I've never really thought about that before.
User avatar
paul hanna
(Online)
 
Posts: 4667
Joined: April 28th 2010, 10:14pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #12  Postby paul hanna » February 28th 2017, 7:08pm

We did an '05 Lunch a few months ago, don't specifically remember seeing anything I thought was overly sweet though, but many didn't look approachable or very enjoyable (we had quite a few Gevreys and Cortons, so probably understandable).

The '05 Rousseau CSJ was my wine of the day though, even better drinking than the Chambertin we had along side of it currently, and a really great wine!
George Chadwick
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: July 7th 2009, 9:33pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #13  Postby George Chadwick » February 28th 2017, 7:35pm

I've had 2 bottles of that 2005 Angerville Taillepieds and "sweet" and "hot" would never have come to mind. Powerfully tannic and urgent fruit needing years.
User avatar
Marcus Stanley
 
Posts: 784
Joined: November 1st 2010, 3:31pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #14  Postby Marcus Stanley » February 28th 2017, 9:39pm

This isn't a 2005, but I had a 2007 D'Angerville Clos Des Ducs that I also found sweet, heavy, and seemingly overextracted. I was astounded at this given the reputation of the producer, vineyard, and vintage.
john stimson
(Online)
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2721
Joined: January 24th 2010, 9:11pm
Location: seattle

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #15  Postby john stimson » February 28th 2017, 11:51pm

Thomas De Waen wrote:Not planning on opening any 2005s until 2025... problem with the better vintages is that they take ages to come around. 93s, in a different style, were really not particularly good until 3-4 years ago.

I remember buying a case of Engel brulees 2000 and almost giving up on them around 2009 as they were completely joyless and seemed on the way down. Sold 6 bottles then tried it again around 2012 and it was absolutely glorious. Just an example of how, sadly, red burgundies ageing curve is anything but linear.


Too damn early for a number of the wines. I wouldn't give up on the d'Angervilles by any means. Other wines are wide open and maybe never shut down. I find it a bit too hard to sort out and am mostly just waiting. Agree with Thomas that sometimes we just create opinions too early on many burgs. Appreciate the notes, though, and the reports so we all don't have to sample these wines at this stage.
Herwig Janssen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 655
Joined: June 19th 2009, 10:02am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #16  Postby Herwig Janssen » March 1st 2017, 2:27am

Indeed , I don't give up on any of these wines , especially not the Comte LB . We had a La Romanee 2005 , a few months ago , that was briljant .
This was just a snap shot tasting , it is not intended to brand the vintage as too sweet or hot . We were just surprised to see how many were ( but still less than 50 % ) .
Now , Stuart , as classic vintage ? 2014 would qualify , I think it is an excellent red Burgundy vintage . Very pure .
Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: April 29th 2010, 1:36pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #17  Postby Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow » March 1st 2017, 9:54am

How about some from the '70s-2005, Herwig? Anyone?

I stopped paying attention to vintages after 2006, when I stopped buying.
Khiem Le
 
Posts: 129
Joined: July 12th 2012, 4:26am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #18  Postby Khiem Le » March 1st 2017, 10:06am

Very interesting notes, Herwig

Most winemakers I have spoken to recommend to let the 2005s mature a few (a lot?) more years.

Khiem
User avatar
Bill Moore
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 235
Joined: July 6th 2012, 3:34am
Location: Bethesda, MD

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #19  Postby Bill Moore » March 1st 2017, 10:41am

Herwig,

Thanks for the detailed report. The few 2005s that I've had, including D'Angerville and Chevillon, don't track with your assessment. I certainly found 2005s to have a density and weight that may not be "classic" per se but were certainly welcome. And given the impeccable balance and freshness that accompanied the density, I reasoned that they just need a lot more time to show their true greatness. I think another decade or more is needed for 1er Crus and above to start realizing their potential.
CT handle: Billigan
User avatar
Mike Grammer
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: April 27th 2010, 7:19am
Location: Toronto

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #20  Postby Mike Grammer » March 1st 2017, 2:53pm

Yes, thanks for your fine notes, Herwig---and a very interesting cross-section across most of the major communes.

Stuart, I'm too much of a young 'un to go back too far, but 01 and 10 are the two vintages that come to mind for me---for reds, anyway. Good examples of 93s? For me, the jury is still out on 02, 05 and 08 (and of course 12, much too young). But for classicism, I love the 2001 vintage and have my hopes that the 2010s will mirror it at least to a degree.

Mike
Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: April 29th 2010, 1:36pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #21  Postby Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow » March 1st 2017, 3:03pm

Mike Grammer wrote:Yes, thanks for your fine notes, Herwig---and a very interesting cross-section across most of the major communes.

Stuart, I'm too much of a young 'un to go back too far, but 01 and 10 are the two vintages that come to mind for me---for reds, anyway. Good examples of 93s? For me, the jury is still out on 02, 05 and 08 (and of course 12, much too young). But for classicism, I love the 2001 vintage and have my hopes that the 2010s will mirror it at least to a degree.

Mike


My impression of 2001 is that it might be "classic" Mike. But, it depends on what one means, and that's what I'm trying to figure out here...how do we assess "classic" in describing vintages? So, I'm curious what people think.
George Chadwick
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: July 7th 2009, 9:33pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #22  Postby George Chadwick » March 1st 2017, 11:02pm

Bill Moore wrote:Herwig,

Thanks for the detailed report. The few 2005s that I've had, including D'Angerville and Chevillon, don't track with your assessment. I certainly found 2005s to have a density and weight that may not be "classic" per se but were certainly welcome. And given the impeccable balance and freshness that accompanied the density, I reasoned that they just need a lot more time to show their true greatness. I think another decade or more is needed for 1er Crus and above to start realizing their potential.


Agreed, including specifically the Angerville Taillepieds.
PCLIN
(Online)
 
Posts: 871
Joined: August 3rd 2013, 9:45am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #23  Postby PCLIN » March 1st 2017, 11:21pm

Oooop! I actually just picked up a case of the '05 Angerville Taillepieds last week. [basic-smile.gif]
Chiu Lin
Herwig Janssen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 655
Joined: June 19th 2009, 10:02am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #24  Postby Herwig Janssen » March 2nd 2017, 12:28am

Yes , one sip of 1 bottle does not mean it is now a universal truth... We need to do this again.

Classic vintage is difficult , Stuart , as I am not sure what it means . At DRC , they use the term : easy vintage or difficult vintage , but one is not necessarily better than the other .
If classic means : pure , a year with not ( too ) much sun ( 1999 ) etc.. , then I would think 2002 , 2010 and 2014 .
Marcus Goodfellow
 
Posts: 892
Joined: January 5th 2011, 10:28pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #25  Postby Marcus Goodfellow » March 2nd 2017, 9:14am

Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow wrote:How about some from the '70s-2005, Herwig? Anyone?

I stopped paying attention to vintages after 2006, when I stopped buying.


I would offer 1995.

It's a vintage of modest yields and temperatures that yielded wines that, now, are delicious, pure, and have very delineated expressions of terroir(IMO).

Stuart-I love your first post, it's a great commentary and the note about what defines a great vintage for the winemakers was a light bulb. I am not really a fan of 2005 Red Burgundy for my own consumption in comparison to many other vintages but there are VERY few poor wines from that vintage.

I think 1989, could also possibly considered classic in nature.
Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: April 29th 2010, 1:36pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #26  Postby Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow » March 2nd 2017, 11:57am

"Classic" is, IMO, generally not a compliment. It usually implies that it is not extraordinary in any real way. Herwig's use of it sounded like "classic" was a goal. Classic vintages in Burgundy have some limitation, e.g., not ripe at the lower levels; too much tannin to be a vintage of "pleasure" (I think 1995 falls into that category); not enough acidity for longevity and real pizzazz...(I think 1989 falls into that category). So, I wonder what people mean by it.

It's always good to know the criteria people use..in any argument. It makes things easier for everyone.

And, especially in Burgundy, "classic vintage" criteria changed a whole lot after the 1980s, when vintages became more universally successful.
g.colangelo
 
Posts: 699
Joined: March 23rd 2013, 12:40pm
Location: Switzerland

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #27  Postby g.colangelo » March 2nd 2017, 1:14pm

Alice Fearing just published on her website a piece on 2005, with one on 2015 to follow.
Interesting, very different view on both vintages.
G i l b e r t o
NJBruce
 
Posts: 309
Joined: October 17th 2009, 8:09pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #28  Postby NJBruce » March 2nd 2017, 9:04pm

I wonder if there's a nuance of difference between the way French vignerons use that term and its use in English, which seems to veer more towards 'archetypal' or even 'everything you'd want in a great burgundy wine/vintage' - which is how it was used of a 1983 Sassicaia at our wine event last night. Perhaps some vignerons aspire to surpass or improve on the 'classic' wines of their antecedents, just as composers might use classical music as a point of departure to express their own ideas.
Nigel Bruce
Hong Kong
Marcus Goodfellow
 
Posts: 892
Joined: January 5th 2011, 10:28pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #29  Postby Marcus Goodfellow » March 2nd 2017, 9:09pm

Stuart, I guess that Classic has many different interpretations. For me, it's perhaps the most positive description of the relationship between region, vineyard, and vintage. IMO, "classic" would be a vintage that produces wines that encapsulate the extraordinary qualities of the region and individual vineyards without being intrusive. Archetypal is somewhat synonymous to classic(for me). Vineyards such as Musigny and Clos de Beze are extraordinary and do not require extraordinary vintages to produce grand vins. I see classic vintages as being ones that evoke Goldilocks claiming into the last bed and finding it "just right"(a subjective assessment for sure).
For me 1995 definitely does that, and 1989 as well, but different strokes for different folks. I ate a lot of currants as a kid and spend my days regularly tasting unfinished Pinot Noir, so my tolerance for tannins is higher than many people's. While I tend to like higher acidity in wines, and '89 is no '96, I had the 1989 Dom. De l'Arlot Clos de l'Arlot last fall and it was holding together marvelously.
User avatar
Mike Grammer
 
Posts: 4586
Joined: April 27th 2010, 7:19am
Location: Toronto

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #30  Postby Mike Grammer » March 3rd 2017, 10:35pm

All right then---for me, I suppose classic is what "takes me right to Burgundy" in the wine, to a place I've come to love. I can use words like purity, luminosity, elegance and length, but I'm not sure I'm getting any farther with those. Perhaps "I know it when I see it" sort of thing? I like how you've analogized to Goldilocks and the porridge, Marcus. That works for me :)
User avatar
Robert Grenley
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 786
Joined: November 23rd 2009, 9:41pm
Location: Seattle, WA

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #31  Postby Robert Grenley » March 5th 2017, 2:30am

Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow wrote:"Classic" is, IMO, generally not a compliment. It usually implies that it is not extraordinary in any real way. Herwig's use of it sounded like "classic" was a goal. Classic vintages in Burgundy have some limitation, e.g., not ripe at the lower levels; too much tannin to be a vintage of "pleasure" (I think 1995 falls into that category); not enough acidity for longevity and real pizzazz...(I think 1989 falls into that category). So, I wonder what people mean by it.

It's always good to know the criteria people use..in any argument. It makes things easier for everyone.

And, especially in Burgundy, "classic vintage" criteria changed a whole lot after the 1980s, when vintages became more universally successful.


Interesting point. Whereas "classic" would seem to be an extreme compliment, more recently it often seems to be used to describe a vintage that is less than exemplary....certainly less exciting than a 2010, less concentrated than a 2005, less ripe than a 2012 or 2015...but used in a way as to encourage interest in a vintage that might otherwise be somewhat overlooked in comparison to more impressive or at least showy vintages that surround it.
I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff.
-Bob Dylan

"...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."
PCLIN
(Online)
 
Posts: 871
Joined: August 3rd 2013, 9:45am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #32  Postby PCLIN » March 5th 2017, 3:06am

g.colangelo wrote:Alice Fearing just published on her website a piece on 2005, with one on 2015 to follow.
Interesting, very different view on both vintages.



Thanks. Interesting read. I also like '07 and '11 more than most people. [cheers.gif]
Chiu Lin
User avatar
Robert Pavlovich
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: October 9th 2012, 11:11am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #33  Postby Robert Pavlovich » March 5th 2017, 9:44am

Robert Grenley wrote:
Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow wrote:"Classic" is, IMO, generally not a compliment. It usually implies that it is not extraordinary in any real way. Herwig's use of it sounded like "classic" was a goal. Classic vintages in Burgundy have some limitation, e.g., not ripe at the lower levels; too much tannin to be a vintage of "pleasure" (I think 1995 falls into that category); not enough acidity for longevity and real pizzazz...(I think 1989 falls into that category). So, I wonder what people mean by it.

It's always good to know the criteria people use..in any argument. It makes things easier for everyone.

And, especially in Burgundy, "classic vintage" criteria changed a whole lot after the 1980s, when vintages became more universally successful.


Interesting point. Whereas "classic" would seem to be an extreme compliment, more recently it often seems to be used to describe a vintage that is less than exemplary....certainly less exciting than a 2010, less concentrated than a 2005, less ripe than a 2012 or 2015...but used in a way as to encourage interest in a vintage that might otherwise be somewhat overlooked in comparison to more impressive or at least showy vintages that surround it.


Agree. Classic, in describing an old world region, I take to mean as a rather cool, and/or a typical to excellent vintage. Plenty of room for variability, but it should avoid the extremes.
Last edited by Robert Pavlovich on March 5th 2017, 11:38am, edited 3 times in total.
PCLIN
(Online)
 
Posts: 871
Joined: August 3rd 2013, 9:45am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #34  Postby PCLIN » March 5th 2017, 11:34am

If you go to Arnoux Lachaux website, 2010 is considered a "classic" vintage, or excellent vintage....
Chiu Lin
Herwig Janssen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 655
Joined: June 19th 2009, 10:02am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #35  Postby Herwig Janssen » March 9th 2017, 1:28am

Yesterday , with friends , we had a 2005 Vosne Romanee La Colombiere from Comte Liger Belair . The wine was perfectly balanced , fresh and nervous , still young and pure . Very different from the Reignots . Maybe he picked the Reignots too late ? I need to open another bottle .
Jürgen Steinke
 
Posts: 757
Joined: September 30th 2009, 6:28am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #36  Postby Jürgen Steinke » March 9th 2017, 2:58am

Isn´t diversity something that makes the wine journey interesting? I always wonder why a pretty ripe wine is a flaw in the eyes of some wine lovers. While most of the winemakers I know love ripe fruit some consumers prefer vintages with less than ideal circumstances during ripeness and harvest – 2008 or the like. Wines with slightly unripe tannins and pretty high acid. Recent 2005 Arnoux Vosne Romanee, Lumpp Givry 1er Cru Crausot and Chevillon Nuits St. George VV were nothing but wonderful. Sure – these wines are fuller, darker, sweeter than their 2002 counterparts i.e. But one verb came always to my mind while drinking theses gems: Delicious.
James Billy
 
Posts: 292
Joined: November 10th 2016, 7:53pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #37  Postby James Billy » March 9th 2017, 3:12am

Classic = typical, no?
davidlown
 
Posts: 88
Joined: September 24th 2010, 5:53pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #38  Postby davidlown » March 9th 2017, 4:01am

I had a clos de reas monopole 1990 vosne romanee at berns a year ago. It was beautiful and in beautiful condition but it was definitely sweet. Sweet compared to cote roties, bordeauxs and hermitages. In a different way sweet. More sweet in a purer manner.

I have a feeling this is what the original post is implying. I think it's a great post in that we are truly getting closer to an understanding of truth of vintages. 2005's and 1993's/2008's are very different and which one is better over the long term is becoming less clear.
Herwig Janssen
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 655
Joined: June 19th 2009, 10:02am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #39  Postby Herwig Janssen » March 9th 2017, 5:37am

Sweet is good . A great pinot always has some sweetness .
Over ripe is not good .
Jürgen Steinke
 
Posts: 757
Joined: September 30th 2009, 6:28am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #40  Postby Jürgen Steinke » March 9th 2017, 6:57am

Herwig Janssen wrote:

"Sweet is good . A great pinot always has some sweetness ."

I am not sure everybody here on this board would sign this.
g.colangelo
 
Posts: 699
Joined: March 23rd 2013, 12:40pm
Location: Switzerland

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #41  Postby g.colangelo » March 9th 2017, 8:04am

Jürgen Steinke wrote:Isn´t diversity something that makes the wine journey interesting? I always wonder why a pretty ripe wine is a flaw in the eyes of some wine lovers. While most of the winemakers I know love ripe fruit some consumers prefer vintages with less than ideal circumstances during ripeness and harvest – 2008 or the like. Wines with slightly unripe tannins and pretty high acid. Recent 2005 Arnoux Vosne Romanee, Lumpp Givry 1er Cru Crausot and Chevillon Nuits St. George VV were nothing but wonderful. Sure – these wines are fuller, darker, sweeter than their 2002 counterparts i.e. But one verb came always to my mind while drinking theses gems: Delicious.


Fully agreed that diversity is very important. But the argument goes both ways: why are only and always the warm, ripe vintages which are considered great? At least the big hype is only for such vintages and I cannot help thinking that this is because these are easier to understand and therefore to sell.

And I know winemakers who think that in such vintages it becomes difficult to get complexity and subtle flavors, not to speak about the acidity to keep the wine fresh and lively, which is what Pinot Noir is all about. Personally, I do find that full ripeness, in the right hands, can give delicious wines, but so far the vintage which I liked best (say of the last ten) is 2010, which can well be defined a classic one.
G i l b e r t o
Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: April 29th 2010, 1:36pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #42  Postby Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow » March 9th 2017, 9:32am

Herwig Janssen wrote:Sweet is good . A great pinot always has some sweetness .
Over ripe is not good .


Definitely agree. And, when it's still there after many years of aging...it makes that wine really special. After all, this is about fruit.
Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: April 29th 2010, 1:36pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #43  Postby Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow » March 9th 2017, 9:39am

g.colangelo wrote:why are only and always the warm, ripe vintages which are considered great? At least the big hype is only for such vintages and I cannot help thinking that this is because these are easier to understand and therefore to sell.


Of course it's important to understand who's doing the "hyping" and "considering". It gets back to how vintages can be rated.

If it's the winemaker/importer doing the analysis, I think it's about across the board consistency: both consistently ripe/good and that way at every level of the hierarchy of vineyards. (It's also how I rate vintages.) To them it's mainly about the fruit...and it's quality.

I don't think that those people have any real problem selling their wines in most vintages or about explaining difficult wines to explain.
k s h i n
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: August 17th 2009, 1:23pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #44  Postby k s h i n » March 9th 2017, 10:14am

A Songeur wrote:Thanks Herwig. Your notes and website are excellent and help me to keep a(little) bit of my Dutch understanding...
I did not know Thibault was making a Vosne petits monts or do you mean Comte?


I believe it is not commercially available. Either the juice or the land belongs to a Belgian group.
Kevin
k s h i n
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: August 17th 2009, 1:23pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #45  Postby k s h i n » March 9th 2017, 10:21am

Herwig Janssen wrote:Sweet is good . A great pinot always has some sweetness .
Over ripe is not good .


For me, a great Burgundy always has a hint of light caramel to add the sweetness. It is a great thing. Sweetness<>Over ripe obviously.
Kevin
Marcus Goodfellow
 
Posts: 892
Joined: January 5th 2011, 10:28pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #46  Postby Marcus Goodfellow » March 9th 2017, 10:53am

davidlown wrote:I had a clos de reas monopole 1990 vosne romanee at berns a year ago. It was beautiful and in beautiful condition but it was definitely sweet. Sweet compared to cote roties, bordeauxs and hermitages. In a different way sweet. More sweet in a purer manner.

I have a feeling this is what the original post is implying. I think it's a great post in that we are truly getting closer to an understanding of truth of vintages. 2005's and 1993's/2008's are very different and which one is better over the long term is becoming less clear.


I agree with this completely. In 2009 I had the opportunity to sit at a tasting of 18 different red Burgundy wines from the 1990 vintage. While every wine was quite lovely, from village wines to Grand Cru(with the exception of one corked bottle), there was an atypically low expression of nuance and precision in the wines other than the Grand Cru wines. All had sweet fruit, and all could be considered delicious, but in the context of 18 different wines from varied sites the tasting was nice rather than sublime.
My first truly great red Burgundy was a 1957 Bonnes Mares served to me in 1996. It remains one of the three greatest wines I have ever had, and my memories are all of dust, mushroom, and the woods. No fruit(not to get myself further into hot water with Stuart) at all.

Over the years of drinking and producing Pinot Noir, I have found beauty in almost all types of the wine but for old bottles, I often prefer the lesser years.
Jürgen Steinke
 
Posts: 757
Joined: September 30th 2009, 6:28am

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #47  Postby Jürgen Steinke » March 9th 2017, 1:46pm

A very wise, pretty famous and clever wine maker told me once: A superb wine has a finish with a sweet ending, not plumb but elegant. Balanced by some acid when we are talking about Burgundy and tannins when we are speaking about Bordeaux.
Marcus Goodfellow
 
Posts: 892
Joined: January 5th 2011, 10:28pm
Location: McMinnville, Oregon

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #48  Postby Marcus Goodfellow » March 9th 2017, 2:16pm

Jürgen Steinke wrote:A very wise, pretty famous and clever wine maker told me once: A superb wine has a finish with a sweet ending, not plumb but elegant. Balanced by some acid when we are talking about Burgundy and tannins when we are speaking about Bordeaux.


Famous and clever are often good partners.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I would propose that when one is talking about a "superb wine" this winemaker has an apt soundbite. When one is talking about a superb Volnay, it may fit this winemakers axiom quite well. When one is talking about a superb LaFarge Volnay, perhaps the axiom is a bit simpler than the wines require to describe their greatness.
James Billy
 
Posts: 292
Joined: November 10th 2016, 7:53pm

A first look at red Burgundy 2005 : surprisingly sweet

Post #49  Postby James Billy » March 10th 2017, 12:03am

Surely ripeness is an issue in Burgundy, traditionally. Hence grand cru sites are positioned like solar panels to maximize their exposure to the sun. Other site may have the same soil, but lack exposure (plus drainage, etc.)

So warm years where most grapes ripenen are largely welcomed by the wine trade and customers. Pretty simple.

Of course, overripe grapes aren't good....

Return to Wine Talk

logo
Food Advertising by