Not sure how relevant, but here are my notes from a 2002 tasting: Domaine Leflaive is at the pinnacle of the White Burgundy hierarchy, often mentioned in the same breath as Romanee Conti and Ramonet. Only Ramonet also has parcels in four grand cru vineyards producing white Burgundy. One is lucky to taste a Leflaive grand cru wine. But forty such wines? An opportunity to taste 40 grand cru Leflaive bottlings in one afternoon? No, I wasn’t dreaming—I was at another Bipin Desai mega-tasting. Wolfgang Puck, trim and young-looking, was cooking at the Wolf range with his Chinois on Main staff, the restaurant was closed to all but the 35 or so lucky souls who kept pinching themselves, and there was served a five course meal plus appetizers while a battalion of sommeliers and waiters poured several flights totaling 40 bottles of Chevalier Montrachet, Batard Montrachet, Bienvenues Montrachet and the rare Montrachet, all from Domaine Leflaive. As usual, this was a pricey event well worth every dollar; who besides Dr. Desai could duplicate such a tasting? Burgundy aficionados from all over the United States and Europe were in attendance, having ponied up the $1500 per person or the less financially irrational $1700 for a shared pour. The shared pour allows two people to share one set of glasses while both enjoy the full lunch. With forty wines and decent pours of more an ounce, the math indicates that only Bacchus should insist on his own glasses. I was there with a shared pour. This was actually the second event in the Leflaive theme, the first having been 30 premier cru wines enjoyed the previous night at Valentino.
Domaine Leflaive is now completely biodynamic even with the Bourgogne vines. Anne-Claude Leflaive, a prime spokesperson and passionate Burgundian, is a wonderful representative for this Puligny-Montrachet domaine. Leflaives have been traced back to 1580 but reached Puligny in 1717. Most of the current domaine was acquired with purchases in the early 1900s and then divided among 5 children by Joseph Leflaive in 1930 in a way that prevents further subdividing otherwise so common with French inheritance laws. Vincent and Jo ran the estate until 1982 and Vincent retired in 1990 when Anne-Claude became manager. Pierre Morey, a great winemaker in his own right, is the Leflaive winemaker producing from 4.3 acres of Chevalier, 4.6 acres of Batard, 2.7 acres of Bienvenues Batard and now with a small plot of Montrachet that allows for one barrel or 25 cases of wine. There are several other wonderful Leflaive vineyards, but the focus of this report remains the grand cru wines. The winemaking recipe is low yield, healthy fruit reared in a biodynamic fashion, native yeasts and minimal intervention. The domaine buys its own wood and has custom casks made for them. There is currently no fining but there is a light filtration. Remington Norman’s wonderful Burgundy tome has a lengthy chapter about Leflaive that explains the philosophy in depth.
As appetizers were served, people milled about, reminiscing over previous tastings, wine purchases, and wine happenings with some friendly one-upping from time to time. It was a friendly and eager group, most of whom seemed to know one another, I assumed from previous tastings. Some were very knowledgeable about the wines of Leflaive (one admitted to yearly visits to Anne-Claude Leflaive) while others seemed not to know that we were tasting Chardonnay. I found them all enjoyable and pleasant participants. The restaurant is closed except for this event, but the entire cooking and serving staff is present; there are about 7 round tables with 5 or 6 people per table in an intimate setting, seating arranged by Dr. Desai who leaves nothing to chance. About 1000 Riedel glasses were lined up in rows, neatly polished, all labeled on the base with the vintage and vineyard, served in flights ranging as numerous as 11. The food, though served in dim sum portions, was exquisite; there is nobody I have seen who can better match food to wine than Wolfgang Puck. The service on all levels was exemplary and the 4 ½ hour afternoon did not lag at all. After each flight, a spokesperson designated by Dr. Desai pontificates opinions about the wines, then others join in and the debate often becomes quite amusing and interesting, as most tables seem to have consensus favorites, but different favorites from other tables. Today there was a single bottle of each wine, so there could be no bottle variation. But onto the wines.
The forty wines were arranged in a very thoughtful fashion. There were 19 vintages of Chevalier Montrachet, 9 of Batard Montrachet, 5 of Bienvenues Batard Montrachet and 7 of the rare (25 cases annually) Montrachet, including even the first Leflaive vintage, 1991. The first flight was all of the 99 and 00 grand cru bottlings except the 99 Montrachet, which proved elusive for even Dr. Desai. The second flight, numbering 11, included various young and old bottlings of Montrachet, Batard and Bienvenues. The greatest flight was the third, 10 vintages of Chevalier Montrachet. The last flight was a denouement, 5 more Chevalier wines, a trio of Montrachet wines, and a couple Batard from “lesser” vintages. Virtually every “important” Leflaive bottle was represented. The 5 course meal started with oysters with pickled ginger and oba leaf, moved with the second flight to grilled lobster and lobster potstickers with galangal and chives flower, then onto crisp loup de mere in rice paper with Thai spices and morel mushrooms, segued into seared Wolf range quail with green apple puree and grapes, finishing for dessert with warm Chino strawberry compote with strawberry sorbet and ginger macadamia nut biscotti. As I’ve said, flavors were fabulous.
With the first flight, the young grand cru wines of 99 and 00, the color was all very similar, the BBM perhaps being slightly lighter. None of them gushed with fruit, all were clean and restrained, very correct young wines. I found the 00 BM to be floral with a good mouthfeel but a bit underfruited, decent intensity and good balance, flavors of orange peel and very similar to the 99 BM. The 99 BM was closed, had a big structure, not elegant, but not clumsy, finished a bit short. The 00 BBM was restrained, flavors of lemon zest, good structure but also a bit underfruited, lean, balanced with good length. The 99 BBM was closed, had a nice zippy nervosite, nice focus and restraint, very elegant, leaner than the BM. I enjoyed the promise of this wine. The 00 CM was sweet, more powerful than expected, had good intensity and minerality and was very elegant with classy Chardonnay fruit. The 99 CM had very little nose, less fruit evident than the 00, less minerality and length, a bit underwhelming. A bit disappointing for this well-reviewed wine. The 00 Montrachet seems to be a young vines bottling, as the fruit was nice but not profound, did not have the focus or precision of the CM, some nice orange peel and fruit, but it did not sing to me.
The second flight was quite a challenge to taste, as it ranged over 4 decades and included three vineyards. I’ll review in order. The 66 BM was dark gold and smelled of botrytis. It held up well in the glass but was not very complex or intense, a bit disjointed. The fruit was muted and there were hints of herbs and hints of rancidity like old butter. The rancidity seemed to dissipate and then some pleasing vanilla caramel became evident and my opinion of the wine rose as well. The 78 BM smelled of shit and musk in a bad way and was, in my opinion, a flawed wine. I tried without success to taste the wine, but could not get past the nose. Of interest, some raved about this wine, but not at our table. Beauty certainly is in the eye, or nose, of the beholder. The 82 BBM was spectacular, had a lovely nose, sweet and refined fruit with lovely minerality, focus and drive, at its apogee but in no danger of disintegrating. This was a very lovely complex bottling. The 83 BBM had hints of figs, less interesting than the 86 that followed, tasted as if it had a dollop of Sauternes added, a bit flabby. The 86 BBM was served out of magnum, had a sweet, almost overripe nose, figgy, hasn’t really blossomed (the magnum perhaps?), nice midpalate richness and good acidity, still restrained. The 90 BM had some stink that blew off, was not as profound as BM can be. It was a nice wine, improving in the glass and developing some refinement and interest. The 92 BM reminded me of Sauternes, slightly over the hill and not tasting of Batard, being a bit flabby and simple. The 92 Montrachet showed a little mushroom stink, nice fruit and finish, but a little underfruited and not very intense or complex, less than hoped for. The 95 BM was a superb wine, great refinement and drive, very promising. Pure citrus fruits including blood orange, this was a very impressive young wine, one of the few I couldn’t spit. The 96 BM was closed, showed minerality and refinement, density and power, a coiled spring. The 96 Montrachet showed some botrytis on the nose, was a bit more golden in color than the other wines, was again a nice wine, but not real focused, surprisingly in the middle of the pack rather than out ahead. Later, the wine developed a little power and refinement, but never quite caught up.
The third flight was eagerly anticipated by me. I am biased: Chevalier Montrachet is my favorite white Burgundy vineyard and Leflaive does Chevy right. All ten wines were from single bottles except the 82 from magnum. That wine smelled of orange peel, was wonderful and at its peak but holding well. Very together and surprisingly lovely and complete, this was a refined and beautiful bottle. The 83 was also surprisingly good, sweet and ripe but a bit dilute, hints of botrytis. The 85 was mildly corked and this muted the fruit. The 86 tasted of caramelized orange peel, had good balance and vibrancy, was on the way up and was quite good. The 89 started with a musky bouquet that blew off, leaving hints of mushrooms. Not real complex but with good density and brightness, this was a good but not profound wine. Neither was the 90, also a bit musky, denser than the 89 but not more complex, acids not well-integrated, slight heat on the finish from alcohol. The 92 smelled of botrytis and ripeness, flavors of apricot and peach, nice but not very Chevalier. The 93, an underrated white vintage, had a lovely nose and showed nice minerality, very clean with great drive and focus, definitely on the way up. The 95 also had good minerality, a Chevalier characteristic, was young and tight and restrained, elegant and refined, not showing a lot of itself, but promising a great future. This bottle for me epitomized Leflaive and Chevalier. The 96 was also wonderful, had hints of herbs and mushrooms, dense refined fruit that I called “super.” This will also be a great wine, lacking only for time in bottle.
The final flight, filling a few vintage gaps and allowing evaluation of a few less esteemed vintages, was also fun, but held few revelations. The 88 CM was lovely, with minerals and focus, transcending the vintage reputation. The 91 CM was very reticent, proper but not exciting, showed some apricot on nose and palate. The 91 Montrachet was ripe and intense but not intellectual, profound or particularly good. The 94 BM was corked and I could not get past that barrier. The 94 CM was fat and Californian, hints of botrytis. Very boring wine. The 97 BM was restrained, a bit hollow, unexciting. The 97 CM was restrained and unexciting. The 97 M followed in this same suit, underwhelming. The fruit was nice but no more than that, not profound though a bit restrained. The two 98s were a good surprise, the CM was very lovely and intense, refined with good structure, fruit and balance. The M was evolved but had an intense nose, floral and vanilla, very good wine and the best of the Montrachet that afternoon.
What did I learn? There were a few lessons and themes. First, there is certainly vintage variation even with a great domaine such as Leflaive. Montrachet is a grand cru wine but not necessarily a better wine than Chevalier, Batard or Bienvenues. Perhaps the Leflaive plot is not very well-situated or the vines are young. Certainly with time, the Leflaive regime will bring this wine in line with its other holdings, but it is not now worth chasing when you can buy and drink 4 bottles of Chevalier for the price of one Montrachet. Bienvenues Batard is certainly grand cru, not a baby brother to Batard and the others, but an individual in its own right. Bienvenues is a fabulous vineyard, deserving of its title. Chevalier Montrachet is an exciting, racy wine, has great minerality, acidity and focus, an amazing voice for the terroirists. Leflaive is for me the Dujac of white Burgundy, all about refinement and elegance. The wines are not big powerful wines, not huge monuments to Chardonnay that impress with size and muscle. They age, they develop and they sing, not loudly but clearly and beautifully. This is a wonderful Domaine that respects the terroir of Burgundy and allows the land to speak. We were certainly willing to listen. alan