Ok ok.
I have an unopened case of this so appreciate the note. Have taken the view that they’re either DOA or too young still so either way no point in opening.
Wasn’t Bougerots Bougerots the Secretary General of the U.N. awhile back?
I once shared a bottle of Bougerots Bougerots’s Gaillac…
My first bottle of Fevre’s 2010 Preusses two years ago showed me little to nuttin’. Aside from cranking my fridge up to cellar temp to avoid a repeat of the OP, do I need to give the next one a bunch more time?
Yes a bunch or 24 hours air. They’re just a bottle of water when they’re closed.
Not sure “luck” is the right word here, since it suggests some kind of random process. Don’t think that is happening. You have people reporting pristine bottles all the way, or a huge number of people reporting largely (70-80%) premoxed bottles. Not enough samples in between if it was merely a matter of luck.
I went to one Fevre premox check tasting of the 2002 and only one bottle was pristine (also by far the lightest colored). This included 10 bottles. But the one pristine bottle (Preuses) was beautiful, so light that it struck me more like a Montee de Tonnerre from one of the more classical years (not 2002), crystalline, completely weightless.
Just had a 2007 Fevre Preuses from somebody else’s collection that was premoxed. So apparently the anaerobic bottling line did not solve the problem. Hoping that their Diam 10 corks will do the job (started in 2010, if I remember rightly).
When you change your joke thread titles, the terrorists have won.
He’s right in principle, though perhaps not in application. 2002 Fevre Clos is flawed. Half? 20 percent? of the bottles are a total waste of $60-100 plus storage and can ruin an evening if there are no backups nearby. That’s beyond outrageous. And my note was extremely complimentary about two of three bottles. But he’s right in principle. [this is in response to Craig immediately above, I had originally titled this thread Flawed Fevre etc. as a joke, the joke being it was flawed because it was too cold, and I was twice chastised for it, so I changed it]
Fevre started using Diam 10s on their Grand Crus in 2010. They started using Diam 5s on the 1er Crus in 2007 (I believe they started using Diam on their village wines in 02, 03 or 04, tho not sure what grade of Diam).
I went though CellarTracker and the oxidized burg wiki and gathered stats on premox incidence on the Grand vs 1er crus for 07 and 08. The 1er crus had no premox report whereas the Grand crus had 30 or 40 reports (unfortunately I posted this info on Facebook, and didn’t write it down elsewhere, so it’s lost forever in the FB maw). So this bodes well for Diam helping the situation.
I thought that both Premier and Grand Cru went to the Diam 5 in 2007 (and then the GC went to Diam 10 in 2010), but maybe not??
There are places where the title “Flawed Chadwick” is written, but you need a license in Psychiatry to get access.
Love the note 
yeah, I opened my only bottle some 5 or 6 years ago—there was no way I was going to take the premox risk. It was a baby but very, very promising at that time. I confess I haven’t bought from what used to be a favourite house of mine for about 4 years now.
Nope, the Grand Crus were under cork until 2010.
Interesting.
But also dangerous, because it supports my hypothesis (and apparently yours as well) as to the identity of the culprit in the Fevre premox…
Yeah, I do think the corks are a big part of Fevre’s premox problem. I’ve noticed a lot of very soft corks with the 04-05 Fevre (Grand Cru) I’ve opened (the soft cork bottles have all been badly premoxed). Hopefully the addition of Diam’s will resolve, or resolve the majority of the problem.