Yes, I’m thinking that too. I hadn’t realized why those crus are always relatively light and elegant, but their situation on the hill makes sense. Chiroubles in particular always seems to have this airy quality that, if still present in 2015, could do a lot to help tame vintage character.
I should have mentioned that I also generally find very subtle brett in Lapierre, but this went well beyond what I’m used to.
That’s very interesting, thanks for the information.
I know John Gilman posts here on occasion and I hope he doesn’t mind. He posted this today:
Given the price point in the mid 20’s I will buy Lapierre year in and year out as I find the vintage variation fascinating.
Tom
The main factor to consider is when the vigneron harvested that year. Jean Paul Brun was apparently able to produce his wines between 12-13% in 2015 so it looks like there will be some decent spread across the vintage.
How have wines from ripe vintages in the past aged? I’m not sure what those are, maybe 89, 90, 05?
By the way, fantastic posts, Doug.
Didier Desvignes Brouilly Optimum 2015 is darkfruited, but with very fine cut and acidity. No plumpness here. Proudly boasting all of 13% alcohol on the label. Certainly no alcoholic heat here, whatever one may think of the thrustwortiness of labels in this regard.
In 89 and 90 there were too few (almost none) making ageworthy and good Beaujolais, so that those two vintages are no reference points. 2005 has aged fantastically, but the vintage was not super warm.
Thanks, Steven. How about 2003?
[quote=“Chris Seiber”
Thanks, Steven. How about 2003?[/quote]
I drank quite a few 2003s over the last two years and a lot of them are great to drink now, especially the structured ones like Ch. des Jacques Clos du Rochegrès or Diochon Vieilles Vignes. Quite a few wines are fading now or are dead. In general’ I’d say 2003 hasn’t aged really well, but it’s no disaster either.
Recently tried the Lapierre, Thivin CdB and Roilette Fleurie, posted some notes here:
Of the 3, the Roilette was the one that showed atypically ripe flavors. It’s quite concentrated too, especially in comparison to previous vintages. It’s also showing so young I’m not sure it’s even worth trying for at least another 6-12 months.
The 2015 Lapierre struck me as classic Lapierre, not a bruiser or overly ripe. I thought it was delicious…perhaps not the 2009, but delicious nonetheless. Should also add that after reading Doug’s note about brett, I have to say there was a bit. Funny, I think I’ve become entirely conditioned to it being present in Lapierre, to the point it’s an enjoyable, if not integral aspect.
The 2015 Thivin, what can I say? It just kills. An absolute ringer for the 2009 at a similar stage, imo. That terroir is special and they are on such a roll. Bye-bye all my wine $s.
Just following up, have any vintage ratings or reviews been posted by the major critics?