Four Awesome Clos

This past weekend, we “used up” our stock of frozen Maine venison to make Stroganoff and kasha for a small group, ending with a very ripe “L’Amis de Chambertin” (a version of epoisses made in Gevrey) and a strawberry/rhubarb crisp… Though the food was good, the wines were astonishingly so. Particularly as I try to not “kill” too many older wines at one event, for many reasons.

1990 is a vintage that during my years of really paying attention to Burgundy, was the first “GREAT” vintage of the “modern” era, i.e, post 1980, when the Boomers started taking over family estates and changing things for the better : hygiene and concentration wise. (Of course, the climate has helped , too. Sadly, perhaps). After the great 1978 and the 1983s (a vintage of great highs and many mistaken perceptions of rot and other defects), 1990 remains, to me the best vintage between 1979 and 1998. I remember when it came out, having visited both during the growing season and right after the bottlings. I then calibrated what a “great vintage” meant to those who made the wines. (Some said that 1990 was the greatest vintage in their fathers’ lifetimes, too.) I realized then that they meant consistent, clean ripeness across the levels of the hierarchies; not the highest highs or best grand crus, etc.). I have more or less adopted those criteria.

I hardly ever do “tastings” or go to them , anymore. But, when I do I try to think of some interesting theme. Having 3 1990 Clos Vougeots, all bought at the estates, at the time, made me drool. So, I “killed” 3 of them; and the wines “killed” , too. I was pretty shocked at how close they were in quality and class. They were:

1. Rene (Phillipe) Engel.
   Subdued and complex and silky almost “blue” fruits. Seemless, though not as nuanced as the Rion. Tons of fruit and delicious at almost 29.
2. Daniel (Patrice) Rion
   Very fruity and well balanced; long long finish of red fruits and chocolate; light and elegant.
3. Chopin- Groffier
   Very sweet-fruity black fruits. Lovely, delicious and regal. Tannins showing through a bit, so you know they’re there.

We served them totally blind, with socks over the bottles, and allowed our friends to guess a little what the common threads were. FWIW, I also, as I usually do, kept some of the wines in bottle for the next morning when my tasting skills are sharpest. I preferred the Engel both times, and the Rion next at the dinner, but…the next day the Rion and the Chopin –Groffier were in a dead heat for “place” and, the Engel was first by a nose (an average nose; not Jimmy Durante’s schnozz either.) What an experience!

And, with the cheese and to finish things off, a Rene (Vincent) Dauvissat Chablis grand cru “Les Clos” 1999, which was, perhaps the best wine of the night, incredibly. I found “mature” honeyed, oyster shell fruit right from the beginning and a depth of concentration I’ve never seen in a 1er cru Chablis. Long nice finish; and harmonious structure. Ready to go, but will last another decade. Wonderful to smell and behold.

When 1990 came out people were raving about the concentration of fruit and ripeness (with little overripeness) they were making. Critics/pundits were a bit skeptical, calling the ripeness “blurry” and the wines too fruity to become great. They did. And, they all seemed very Clos Vougeot, given that the vineyard’s wines are diverse, depending on location, exposition and maker. The fruit blurs nothing 29 years later!! In fact, the fruit levels, combined with the maturing elements of the wines now, are a joy to behold. Will other vintages be “better”? Do obviously ripe and succulent wines make for a great vintage if all else is there to balance the fruit? Probably. But, this is why I’ve bought and aged red Burgundy. What a payoff! “Great vintages” are that for obvious reasons: the great fruit and balancing structure. “Obvious” is not bad for greatness , IMO. And, those contrarians who look to neighboring vintages that are less “obvious” as “better” are in denial a bit. (1991 can’t compete; nor can 2001 compete with 1999, IMO).

Thank you for the very interesting report and remarks from a perspective which is nowadays unusual.
I got into Burgundy (into serious wine drinking in fact) much later and have very little direct experience of the wines of the 90s, much less of the 80s. I think I never had a 1990.
How would you compare 1990 to “ripe” vintages after 2000?

Great post Stuart, lots of intellectual satisfaction and passion equally represented in your words. Enjoyed reading it.

Cheers,
Doug

Very satisfying to cellar such wines for so long, and to have them show as hoped.

Did you “kill” your English teachers with your “prolific” use of “quotation” marks?

. . . the reason we cellar and chase these wines. Nice.

I enjoyed your post vicariously

So I’m hardly a Burgundy expert but no love for 1985? The few I’ve had from that year were really good

I also missed 1985 above … we can discuss if it is “really” a great vintage like 1978 or 1990, but I´d say it is (far) more consistent than 1983 - and the heights are no less high.

Thanks for your comments.

Re: ripe vintages after 2000, all I can say is that 2005 is a super, more-delineated 1990, when I tasted it after bottling in 2007. But, I stopped following vintages after 2006, so…can’t add anything about others. 2005 is, perhaps, a little too muscular, if it has any flaws. It will need a minimum of 20 years to show its stuff, IMO. 2002 is a vintage I am really charmed by and very optimistic about. Recent 1999 have been really impressive and surprisingly ready to rock.

Re: 1985. I visited in November 1985, after the harvest and in summer 1988 after bottling. The demand was incredible as Parker had raved about the vintage, which , in some ways, was the first good “modern” vintage. It was/is very nice…but lacked both the concentration and the acid structure to promote truly long fruity finishes (which to me is the test of both young and older vintages, and those in barrel.) Certainly tasty; but I don’t rate it higher than 1988, which was more tannic. (Again, I use “across the board” as my vintage criterion.)

Re: 1983. The vintage was certainly irregular, particularly on the Cote de Beaune. But, the supposed “rot” that people describe is something I’ve never really experienced. I think the inconsistencies are from ripeness levels that rose too high for the degree of technology available in those days to control them and their fermentations, ie, temperature control. BUT, despite those issues, for me, 1983 is still my champion of “highest highs” from 1979-1999. I have had some memorable marvels, and not that infrequently. For me, that vintage epitomizes the inconsistency of the “old” Burgundy vintages, but captures the heights that newer “great” vintages doesn’t, though the newer vintages’ heights might give more hedonistic pleasure, at times, the 1983 combine the hedonistic and intellectual heights red Burgundy aspires to. But, they required 25 years to get there, too. And, many people dismissed them too early…for several reasons, including a browned-out color early on. That was confused with “rot”, but, IMO, did not affect the taste or enjoyment, as long as one understood the distinction.

FWIW.

I hope this all inspires to allow these wines to mature and show what’s special about them…at all levels of the hierarchy. Too many experience only “trophier wines” and before they really show why they’re revered…and cost so much.

Lovely account, killing and all. I discovered Engel late and regret not loading up when prices were very reasonable. The limited number I’ve had have all been right in my flavor preference zone.

Cheers,
fred