2018 Dauvissat

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Post Reply
Message
Author
JWalter
Posts: 81
Joined: June 28th, 2013, 11:04 am
Location: Midland TX

2018 Dauvissat

#1 Post by JWalter » February 6th, 2020, 6:43 pm

Had a 2018 La Forest and Preuses last night off a restaurant list. Pretty fresh off the boat I guess.

I often find Dauvissat to have a short but good drinking window right after bottling. Was the case last night but needed almost 2 hours to open up. Found the Preueses to be the outperformed this time, normally I find the Forest drinks better off the boat. Preuses was much more open and had the grand cru level intensity / deep iodine which put it a step above. This was my first 2018 Chablis but left dinner impressed with the vintage.

User avatar
B. Buzzini
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 4166
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 7:08 pm
Location: Calif.

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#2 Post by B. Buzzini » February 6th, 2020, 7:57 pm

No 2017’s on the list! Galloni rated the 17 Les Preuses 100pts. Greatest Dauvissat ever in his opinion.

Super wines no matter what...IMO.
Meursault-head!

B. = Brian

User avatar
scamhi
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3946
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:31 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#3 Post by scamhi » February 7th, 2020, 5:39 am

JWalter wrote:
February 6th, 2020, 6:43 pm
Had a 2018 La Forest and Preuses last night off a restaurant list. Pretty fresh off the boat I guess.

I often find Dauvissat to have a short but good drinking window right after bottling. Was the case last night but needed almost 2 hours to open up. Found the Preueses to be the outperformed this time, normally I find the Forest drinks better off the boat. Preuses was much more open and had the grand cru level intensity / deep iodine which put it a step above. This was my first 2018 Chablis but left dinner impressed with the vintage.
Were you drinking them outside of the US?
Preuses is a grand cru and should be better than the Forest
S u z a n n e C a m h i
instagram: suz_cam

User avatar
jason stein
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 264
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 11:15 am
Location: Boston/NYC

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#4 Post by jason stein » February 7th, 2020, 5:44 am

[quote=scamhi post_id=2906854 time=1581082790 user_id=238]
[quote=JWalter post_id=2906682 time=1581043432 user_id=16814]
Had a 2018 La Forest and Preuses last night off a restaurant list. Pretty fresh off the boat I guess.

I often find Dauvissat to have a short but good drinking window right after bottling. Was the case last night but needed almost 2 hours to open up. Found the Preueses to be the outperformed this time, normally I find the Forest drinks better off the boat. Preuses was much more open and had the grand cru level intensity / deep iodine which put it a step above. This was my first 2018 Chablis but left dinner impressed with the vintage.
[/quote]

Were you drinking them outside of the US?
Preuses is a grand cru and should be better than the Forest
[/quote]

I think the implication is the Forest could be showing better in youth here. Also depending on who you ask La Forest is GC quality in the right hands.

JWalter
Posts: 81
Joined: June 28th, 2013, 11:04 am
Location: Midland TX

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#5 Post by JWalter » February 7th, 2020, 9:05 pm

Exactly. Preuses is a better wine but most years I dont think the GCs open up in the same way as the 1ers right after bottling. For sure with 2017, La Forest showed better right out of the gate even against the “greatest ever”. Not disputing relative quality just early drinking window

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#6 Post by William Kelley » February 9th, 2020, 5:02 pm

I have the 2018 Dauvissat Chablis in my glass right now, from the Vineyard Brands bottling. It's a very pretty wine, and fresher than the 2015 was at the same age, as well as a touch more open-knit. I'd venture that there are some points of comparison with 2009. It isn't on the level of the 2017, however, nor the 2014, 2012 and 2010 or 2008. Of those years, incidentally, I'd nominate '14 as the best, rather than 2017, beautiful though the later vintage is. The 2017s are just a touch more sun-kissed which lends them more immediate appeal out of the gates, but I think 2014 will always have the edge.
The Wine Advocate

JWalter
Posts: 81
Joined: June 28th, 2013, 11:04 am
Location: Midland TX

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#7 Post by JWalter » February 9th, 2020, 7:37 pm

+1 for 2014. Had the 2014 La Forest week before last and it blew the socks off a 2013 Raveneau Butteax. I haven’t been crazy about the 2013s so no surprise there

User avatar
billnanson
Posts: 1439
Joined: October 22nd, 2010, 11:08 am
Location: Bern and Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#8 Post by billnanson » February 10th, 2020, 12:32 pm

Another vote for 14. I also think that 12 is better than 17.
17 remains excellent and much more approachable than 12 and 14 were at the same age...
Burgundy Report - online since 2002...

User avatar
Robert Grenley
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: November 23rd, 2009, 8:41 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#9 Post by Robert Grenley » February 12th, 2020, 6:56 pm

William Kelley wrote:
February 9th, 2020, 5:02 pm
I have the 2018 Dauvissat Chablis in my glass right now, from the Vineyard Brands bottling. It's a very pretty wine, and fresher than the 2015 was at the same age, as well as a touch more open-knit. I'd vent ture that there are some points of comparison with 2009. It isn't on the level of the 2017, however, nor the 2014, 2012 and 2010 or 2008. Of those years, incidentally, I'd nominate '14 as the best, rather than 2017, beautiful though the later vintage is. The 2017s are just a touch more sun-kissed which lends them more immediate appeal out of the gates, but I think 2014 will always have the edge.
After some nicely premoxed Dauvissat”s, I believe in 2008 vintage, and hearing that they are in some degree of denial, and with the Grand Crus now in our marketplace at over $200 per bottle, I am no longer a buyer. Of course, if you drink them early, no problem...but then, are they worth the premium? Oh, whatever.
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."

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#10 Post by William Kelley » February 13th, 2020, 7:55 am

Robert Grenley wrote:
February 12th, 2020, 6:56 pm
After some nicely premoxed Dauvissat”s, I believe in 2008 vintage, and hearing that they are in some degree of denial, and with the Grand Crus now in our marketplace at over $200 per bottle, I am no longer a buyer. Of course, if you drink them early, no problem...but then, are they worth the premium? Oh, whatever.
It's a difficult one, and of course it's a conundrum that applies at many estates. I did observe that the 2018s have been bottled with really nice, dense, unbleached corks from Trescases, which should stack the decks somewhat more in their favor. But premox at Dauvissat is an interesting one, in that I never had an oxidized bottle in France, where I drink a lot of the wines—including many recent bottles of 2008, all pristine. By contrast, in the UK and US I have had quite a few oxidized bottles from that vintage. Even if wines tend to show better "sur place" in general, that seems to be especially acute in Dauvissat's case. This has sometimes made me wonder if the issue is malolactic instability (exacerbated by transport) rather than classic premox. But it's hard to say. Certainly, in terms of winemaking practices, they do everything right, so if there is a weak link there, it would have to be at the bottling line or an issue with closures.

In so far as there's a solution for you, it might be to buy more Petit Chablis and Chablis, and pass on the higher appellations which really do need time. Frankly, I would prefer to drink Dauvissat's Petit Chablis than the majority of producers' grand cru bottlings in any case.
The Wine Advocate

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#11 Post by Carl Steefel » February 13th, 2020, 8:03 am

William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 7:55 am
Robert Grenley wrote:
February 12th, 2020, 6:56 pm
After some nicely premoxed Dauvissat”s, I believe in 2008 vintage, and hearing that they are in some degree of denial, and with the Grand Crus now in our marketplace at over $200 per bottle, I am no longer a buyer. Of course, if you drink them early, no problem...but then, are they worth the premium? Oh, whatever.
It's a difficult one, and of course it's a conundrum that applies at many estates. I did observe that the 2018s have been bottled with really nice, dense, unbleached corks from Trescases, which should stack the decks somewhat more in their favor. But premox at Dauvissat is an interesting one, in that I never had an oxidized bottle in France, where I drink a lot of the wines—including many recent bottles of 2008, all pristine. By contrast, in the UK and US I have had quite a few oxidized bottles from that vintage. Even if wines tend to show better "sur place" in general, that seems to be especially acute in Dauvissat's case. This has sometimes made me wonder if the issue is malolactic instability (exacerbated by transport) rather than classic premox. But it's hard to say. Certainly, in terms of winemaking practices, they do everything right, so if there is a weak link there, it would have to be at the bottling line or an issue with closures.

In so far as there's a solution for you, it might be to buy more Petit Chablis and Chablis, and pass on the higher appellations which really do need time. Frankly, I would prefer to drink Dauvissat's Petit Chablis than the majority of producers' grand cru bottlings in any case.
By "malolactic instability", you mean the products of the malolactic fermentation somehow break down (perhaps even in the absence of high O2)? I have wondered off and on if something like this was the problem with Fevre, where I had the impression the "creamier" (for want of a better word, presumably the malo products) seem to go south over some relatively short period of time.

The Petit Chablis is not Kimmeridgian soil, if I recall. Is this really the same stuff as the Chablis and up?

Otherwise, the most backwards of the Dauvissat seems to be the Clos, which underperforms the Preuses typically in the early ratings, then surges past when you get to 10-12 years. Still a step up from the Forest in most years...

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#12 Post by William Kelley » February 13th, 2020, 8:19 am

Carl Steefel wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 8:03 am
By "malolactic instability", you mean the products of the malolactic fermentation somehow break down (perhaps even in the absence of high O2)? I have wondered off and on if something like this was the problem with Fevre, where I had the impression the "creamier" (for want of a better word, presumably the malo products) seem to go south over some relatively short period of time.

The Petit Chablis is not Kimmeridgian soil, if I recall. Is this really the same stuff as the Chablis and up?

Otherwise, the most backwards of the Dauvissat seems to be the Clos, which underperforms the Preuses typically in the early ratings, then surges past when you get to 10-12 years. Still a step up from the Forest in most years...
No, I mean that malolactic fermentation is incomplete, and then starts up again in bottle at a later date (i.e. if they wine warms up a little in transit, for example). I have seen lab analyses of Dauvissat wines that still contained appreciable quantities of malic acid - 1996, for example - and could imagine this is not uncommon. Malolactic instability was one reason many domaines began sterile filtering white Burgundies in the 1980s, solving the problem by removing the microbes rather than removing the malic acid.

As far as the geological imprint on the wines is concerned (and note, to be pedantic, that it's the bedrock that's Kimmeridgian), all I can say is that I once watched a Master of Wine, who has written a book on Chablis, guess Dauvissat's 1996 Petit Chablis as 1996 Les Clos when tasting blind in the cellars with Vincent. I guessed the vintage and left the appellation to him, and I was glad I did, as I might easily have embarrassed myself just as much. In practice, when you walk around the vineyards of Chablis, and especially the grand cru slope, you find lots of fragments of both types of bedrock mixed into the soils, and in Les Clos it is quite difficult to find—at least on the surface—the "oyster shell" Kimmeridgian limestone of which so much is made, so I think these distinctions are overdrawn. If you find someone with really good viticulture, who harvests by hand, and who makes wine in a classical, artisanal way (and you do not need all your fingers and toes to count them), you can be assured of a good bottle of Chablis irrespective of the appellation. And I would certainly not disdain any bottle of Dauvissat on the grounds that the vines that produced it touched the wrong kind of limestone with their roots.

As for Les Clos surging past Les Preuses, I'm not so sure about that either. They are just very different wines, and preferences are more a matter of taste than of quality. Vincent, I think, prefers Les Preuses over Les Clos, and I tend to follow him on that. The three best bottles of Dauvissat I had last year were probably 1989 Preuses, 1976 Séchet and 2008 Les Clos, in that order.
The Wine Advocate

User avatar
alan weinberg
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 12738
Joined: April 25th, 2009, 1:23 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#13 Post by alan weinberg » February 13th, 2020, 9:40 am

William’s comments are as usual educational and thought-provoking. I find the same issue w Raveneau—prefer Valmur over Clos like preferring Preuses over Clos chez Dauvissat. Fun to have both!

Martin Petersen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 202
Joined: August 22nd, 2011, 1:43 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#14 Post by Martin Petersen » February 13th, 2020, 9:43 am

Regarding premox and Dauvissat I need to echo what William just stated: Over the last 8-10 years (only then discovered Dauvissat) I have been drinking dozens of bottles at home (Denmark) and in restaurants in Europe going back to vintage 2001 but most 2006 and younger. I’ve yet to open a premox’ed bottle.

Opened my first bottle 2016 (Forest) last night - just wonderful. Will leave these and 2017/2018/2014 to sleep while I drink my pre-2014 vintages.

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#15 Post by Carl Steefel » February 13th, 2020, 10:47 am

William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 8:19 am
Carl Steefel wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 8:03 am
By "malolactic instability", you mean the products of the malolactic fermentation somehow break down (perhaps even in the absence of high O2)? I have wondered off and on if something like this was the problem with Fevre, where I had the impression the "creamier" (for want of a better word, presumably the malo products) seem to go south over some relatively short period of time.

The Petit Chablis is not Kimmeridgian soil, if I recall. Is this really the same stuff as the Chablis and up?

Otherwise, the most backwards of the Dauvissat seems to be the Clos, which underperforms the Preuses typically in the early ratings, then surges past when you get to 10-12 years. Still a step up from the Forest in most years...
No, I mean that malolactic fermentation is incomplete, and then starts up again in bottle at a later date (i.e. if they wine warms up a little in transit, for example). I have seen lab analyses of Dauvissat wines that still contained appreciable quantities of malic acid - 1996, for example - and could imagine this is not uncommon. Malolactic instability was one reason many domaines began sterile filtering white Burgundies in the 1980s, solving the problem by removing the microbes rather than removing the malic acid.

As far as the geological imprint on the wines is concerned (and note, to be pedantic, that it's the bedrock that's Kimmeridgian), all I can say is that I once watched a Master of Wine, who has written a book on Chablis, guess Dauvissat's 1996 Petit Chablis as 1996 Les Clos when tasting blind in the cellars with Vincent. I guessed the vintage and left the appellation to him, and I was glad I did, as I might easily have embarrassed myself just as much. In practice, when you walk around the vineyards of Chablis, and especially the grand cru slope, you find lots of fragments of both types of bedrock mixed into the soils, and in Les Clos it is quite difficult to find—at least on the surface—the "oyster shell" Kimmeridgian limestone of which so much is made, so I think these distinctions are overdrawn. If you find someone with really good viticulture, who harvests by hand, and who makes wine in a classical, artisanal way (and you do not need all your fingers and toes to count them), you can be assured of a good bottle of Chablis irrespective of the appellation. And I would certainly not disdain any bottle of Dauvissat on the grounds that the vines that produced it touched the wrong kind of limestone with their roots.

As for Les Clos surging past Les Preuses, I'm not so sure about that either. They are just very different wines, and preferences are more a matter of taste than of quality. Vincent, I think, prefers Les Preuses over Les Clos, and I tend to follow him on that. The three best bottles of Dauvissat I had last year were probably 1989 Preuses, 1976 Séchet and 2008 Les Clos, in that order.
Well, I will be glad to participate in a blind tasting with Petit Chablis and Chablis. I was not necessarily attributed everything to those oyster shells, but there is some combination of these marine limestones and clays (especially in the Grand Cru, as far as I can see). I have had a few (but no more) Petit Chablis and they struck me as significantly different from Chablis, but a blind tasting would be the only more or less objective way to test. Using a top winemaker like Dauvissat would be a great way to do this (perhaps I mixed in lesser winemakers into my casual assessment).

All of my top wines that were older were again Dauvissat Clos, but I have only had a couple of the Preuses. Certainly this one seems richer, less austere, with the Clos pretty much requiring 10 years. Best Dauvissat was the 1996 Dauvissat Clos (significantly underrated recently by Tanzer IMO), followed by the 2007 Clos...

Interesting about the incomplete malo idea...

User avatar
Robert Grenley
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: November 23rd, 2009, 8:41 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#16 Post by Robert Grenley » February 13th, 2020, 10:47 am

William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 8:19 am
Carl Steefel wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 8:03 am
By "malolactic instability", you mean the products of the malolactic fermentation somehow break down (perhaps even in the absence of high O2)? I have wondered off and on if something like this was the problem with Fevre, where I had the impression the "creamier" (for want of a better word, presumably the malo products) seem to go south over some relatively short period of time.

The Petit Chablis is not Kimmeridgian soil, if I recall. Is this really the same stuff as the Chablis and up?

Otherwise, the most backwards of the Dauvissat seems to be the Clos, which underperforms the Preuses typically in the early ratings, then surges past when you get to 10-12 years. Still a step up from the Forest in most years...
No, I mean that malolactic fermentation is incomplete, and then starts up again in bottle at a later date (i.e. if they wine warms up a little in transit, for example). I have seen lab analyses of Dauvissat wines that still contained appreciable quantities of malic acid - 1996, for example - and could imagine this is not uncommon. Malolactic instability was one reason many domaines began sterile filtering white Burgundies in the 1980s, solving the problem by removing the microbes rather than removing the malic acid.

As far as the geological imprint on the wines is concerned (and note, to be pedantic, that it's the bedrock that's Kimmeridgian), all I can say is that I once watched a Master of Wine, who has written a book on Chablis, guess Dauvissat's 1996 Petit Chablis as 1996 Les Clos when tasting blind in the cellars with Vincent. I guessed the vintage and left the appellation to him, and I was glad I did, as I might easily have embarrassed myself just as much. In practice, when you walk around the vineyards of Chablis, and especially the grand cru slope, you find lots of fragments of both types of bedrock mixed into the soils, and in Les Clos it is quite difficult to find—at least on the surface—the "oyster shell" Kimmeridgian limestone of which so much is made, so I think these distinctions are overdrawn. If you find someone with really good viticulture, who harvests by hand, and who makes wine in a classical, artisanal way (and you do not need all your fingers and toes to count them), you can be assured of a good bottle of Chablis irrespective of the appellation. And I would certainly not disdain any bottle of Dauvissat on the grounds that the vines that produced it touched the wrong kind of limestone with their roots.

As for Les Clos surging past Les Preuses, I'm not so sure about that either. They are just very different wines, and preferences are more a matter of taste than of quality. Vincent, I think, prefers Les Preuses over Les Clos, and I tend to follow him on that. The three best bottles of Dauvissat I had last year were probably 1989 Preuses, 1976 Séchet and 2008 Les Clos, in that order.
Interesting comments, William...appreciate your discussions on these boards quite a lot. Having stopped buying WB some years ago due to horrible experience with premix, and now considering slowly dipping a toe back in, I am assessing what risks I am ready to take. Drinking early is one strategy, but for my money only worth it for lower priced wines...Petit Chablis, as you mention. Drinking only under DIAM is one ai am considering. Trying a few producers not (yet) under DIAM who may have worked on a number of factors (increasing SO2, ? Still using basket presses, etc.) is another. Can’t get Coche and Raveneau, so that is not a solution!

But with all of that,I live on the West Coast of the US, and it seems like the issues of shipment and storage exposing underlying vulnerabilities is yet another bag of worms...worse outside of France, perhaps, worse in the US than Europe, worse on the West Coast than the East, and of course worse depending on warehouse and retail storage after it gets here.
Perhaps these latter issues were always in play, but it still gets back to what changed in 95-96 that made the underlying wines, in so many cases, more vulnerable. And perhaps it is too many things that changed to put a finger on.
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."

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#17 Post by William Kelley » February 13th, 2020, 11:02 am

Carl Steefel wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 10:47 am

Well, I will be glad to participate in a blind tasting with Petit Chablis and Chablis. I was not necessarily attributed everything to those oyster shells, but there is some combination of these marine limestones and clays (especially in the Grand Cru, as far as I can see). I have had a few (but no more) Petit Chablis and they struck me as significantly different from Chablis, but a blind tasting would be the only more or less objective way to test. Using a top winemaker like Dauvissat would be a great way to do this (perhaps I mixed in lesser winemakers into my casual assessment).

All of my top wines that were older were again Dauvissat Clos, but I have only had a couple of the Preuses. Certainly this one seems richer, less austere, with the Clos pretty much requiring 10 years. Best Dauvissat was the 1996 Dauvissat Clos (significantly underrated recently by Tanzer IMO), followed by the 2007 Clos...

Interesting about the incomplete malo idea...
Most Petit Chablis is overcropped, machine harvested, enzymatically clarified, fermented with selected yeasts in large stainless tanks with strict temperature control below 20 degrees centigrade, then fined, sterile filtered, and bottled early. Actually, that is true of most Chablis in general—which it why it's remarkable that most Chablis still tastes recognizably like Chablis, and different from other Chardonnay handled so abusively elsewhere. But Petit Chablis is likely to be treated the worst - and overcropped the most flagrantly - of any wine in a given range. Unfortunately, there are also often multiple bottlings of such cuvées, and the overseas markets, for logistical reasons, generally get the first: meaning less time on the lees and generally a somewhat inferior product. So the question is to what extent is the terroir hierarchy being revealed and to what extent is it being reinforced?

Dauvissat makes the reference, and it is very good. Raveneau's young vine cuvée is very good, too. But beyond that, if I were to buy Petit Chablis elsewhere I would consider Moreau Naudet, Patrick Piuze, Samuel Billaud (all from the plateau above the grand cru) and Séguinot Bordet (from Maligny, meaning more clay and thus more texture).

Try to find a bottle of Dauvissat's 1997 Les Clos! We had a magnum last Spring and it was terrific. An underrated vintage for Chablis.
The Wine Advocate

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#18 Post by William Kelley » February 13th, 2020, 11:04 am

Robert Grenley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 10:47 am
Interesting comments, William...appreciate your discussions on these boards quite a lot. Having stopped buying WB some years ago due to horrible experience with premix, and now considering slowly dipping a toe back in, I am assessing what risks I am ready to take. Drinking early is one strategy, but for my money only worth it for lower priced wines...Petit Chablis, as you mention. Drinking only under DIAM is one ai am considering. Trying a few producers not (yet) under DIAM who may have worked on a number of factors (increasing SO2, ? Still using basket presses, etc.) is another. Can’t get Coche and Raveneau, so that is not a solution!

But with all of that,I live on the West Coast of the US, and it seems like the issues of shipment and storage exposing underlying vulnerabilities is yet another bag of worms...worse outside of France, perhaps, worse in the US than Europe, worse on the West Coast than the East, and of course worse depending on warehouse and retail storage after it gets here.
Perhaps these latter issues were always in play, but it still gets back to what changed in 95-96 that made the underlying wines, in so many cases, more vulnerable. And perhaps it is too many things that changed to put a finger on.
My pleasure.

One producer I have found very reliable, including in the late-90s / early-2000s "death zone", is Bernard Moreau. This domaine is the largest holding of white Burgundy in my personal cellar, so if I am wrong, I will be the first to be badly burnt.
The Wine Advocate

john stimson
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3453
Joined: January 24th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Location: seattle

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#19 Post by john stimson » February 13th, 2020, 12:12 pm

William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 8:19 am
Carl Steefel wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 8:03 am
By "malolactic instability", you mean the products of the malolactic fermentation somehow break down (perhaps even in the absence of high O2)? I have wondered off and on if something like this was the problem with Fevre, where I had the impression the "creamier" (for want of a better word, presumably the malo products) seem to go south over some relatively short period of time.

The Petit Chablis is not Kimmeridgian soil, if I recall. Is this really the same stuff as the Chablis and up?

Otherwise, the most backwards of the Dauvissat seems to be the Clos, which underperforms the Preuses typically in the early ratings, then surges past when you get to 10-12 years. Still a step up from the Forest in most years...
No, I mean that malolactic fermentation is incomplete, and then starts up again in bottle at a later date (i.e. if they wine warms up a little in transit, for example). I have seen lab analyses of Dauvissat wines that still contained appreciable quantities of malic acid - 1996, for example - and could imagine this is not uncommon. Malolactic instability was one reason many domaines began sterile filtering white Burgundies in the 1980s, solving the problem by removing the microbes rather than removing the malic acid.

So William, what would a wine that suffers from malolactic instability, and perhaps a restart of malolactic fermentation, taste like? I too am on the west coast of the US, and have had quite a bit of Dauvissat premox in the 2008-2011 range (and interestingly, not a lot before). These wines seem to me to have pretty classic premox characteristics (baked, browned apple, darker color, all of which gets worse with air, are the most common characteristics).

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#20 Post by Carl Steefel » February 14th, 2020, 4:01 pm

William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 11:02 am
Carl Steefel wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 10:47 am

Well, I will be glad to participate in a blind tasting with Petit Chablis and Chablis. I was not necessarily attributed everything to those oyster shells, but there is some combination of these marine limestones and clays (especially in the Grand Cru, as far as I can see). I have had a few (but no more) Petit Chablis and they struck me as significantly different from Chablis, but a blind tasting would be the only more or less objective way to test. Using a top winemaker like Dauvissat would be a great way to do this (perhaps I mixed in lesser winemakers into my casual assessment).

All of my top wines that were older were again Dauvissat Clos, but I have only had a couple of the Preuses. Certainly this one seems richer, less austere, with the Clos pretty much requiring 10 years. Best Dauvissat was the 1996 Dauvissat Clos (significantly underrated recently by Tanzer IMO), followed by the 2007 Clos...

Interesting about the incomplete malo idea...
Most Petit Chablis is overcropped, machine harvested, enzymatically clarified, fermented with selected yeasts in large stainless tanks with strict temperature control below 20 degrees centigrade, then fined, sterile filtered, and bottled early. Actually, that is true of most Chablis in general—which it why it's remarkable that most Chablis still tastes recognizably like Chablis, and different from other Chardonnay handled so abusively elsewhere. But Petit Chablis is likely to be treated the worst - and overcropped the most flagrantly - of any wine in a given range. Unfortunately, there are also often multiple bottlings of such cuvées, and the overseas markets, for logistical reasons, generally get the first: meaning less time on the lees and generally a somewhat inferior product. So the question is to what extent is the terroir hierarchy being revealed and to what extent is it being reinforced?

Dauvissat makes the reference, and it is very good. Raveneau's young vine cuvée is very good, too. But beyond that, if I were to buy Petit Chablis elsewhere I would consider Moreau Naudet, Patrick Piuze, Samuel Billaud (all from the plateau above the grand cru) and Séguinot Bordet (from Maligny, meaning more clay and thus more texture).

Try to find a bottle of Dauvissat's 1997 Les Clos! We had a magnum last Spring and it was terrific. An underrated vintage for Chablis.
I realized I had never tried a Petit Chablis from a good producer, so I went ahead and grabbed a bottle of the 2016 Dauvissat Petit Chablis. Now I just need to source the Grand Cru (or Premier Cru) to put it up against...

Fred C
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2653
Joined: July 11th, 2011, 10:09 am

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#21 Post by Fred C » February 14th, 2020, 4:34 pm

William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 11:04 am

One producer I have found very reliable, including in the late-90s / early-2000s "death zone", is Bernard Moreau. This domaine is the largest holding of white Burgundy in my personal cellar, so if I am wrong, I will be the first to be badly burnt.
So I’m late to the Bernard Moreau party but I was so blown away by the 2011 Chevalier-Montrachet at Don’s 2011 Vintage Assessment dinner last year that I started to buy as many as I could find. It was my favorite wine of the night in the single blind format.

My enthusiasm was tempered by an advanced 2007 Chenevottes from a restaurant with a famously cool and reliable cellar. This coupled with a recent report from Charles Fu Esq. of an advanced 2011 Chevalier Montrachet made me dial back my purchases.
Ch!3n

JWalter
Posts: 81
Joined: June 28th, 2013, 11:04 am
Location: Midland TX

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#22 Post by JWalter » February 14th, 2020, 7:37 pm

2011 Dauvissat has been terrible to me. Probably >25% premix rate. Haven’t had issues with really any other vintage. Mostly Forest, but have had a bottle or two of Clos that were really advanced. From two different sources so I wonder if it is vintage more than anything else? Seems like other folks have had bad luck with 2011....

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#23 Post by Carl Steefel » March 14th, 2020, 6:13 pm

2016 Dauvissat Petit Chablis. Way better than what I was accustomed to in Petit Chablis (although maybe it should be at $65 a bottle). Clearly a quality white Burg, but I have to say I still do not recognize it clearly as a classic (Kimmeridgian) Chablis, since it is missing that crisp, briney (OK, oyster shell) character I associate with those. I doubt I would have identified this as a Chablis blind, would have said a mid-level white Burg. Well, next time need to put it directly up against the Kimmeridgian...

A Songeur
Posts: 1026
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 6:45 am

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#24 Post by A Songeur » March 15th, 2020, 10:12 am

And the Dauvissat Chablis village? Is it any good? I getevery year 2 btles village, 1 1er cru and 1 grand cru from my wine merchant (small shop), the shopkeeper chooses and I get what I am told ... Drinking windows for each level: what would you recommend?
Antoine

Alexander Hojem
Posts: 5
Joined: June 1st, 2014, 1:48 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#25 Post by Alexander Hojem » March 15th, 2020, 1:24 pm

William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 7:55 am
Robert Grenley wrote:
February 12th, 2020, 6:56 pm
After some nicely premoxed Dauvissat”s, I believe in 2008 vintage, and hearing that they are in some degree of denial, and with the Grand Crus now in our marketplace at over $200 per bottle, I am no longer a buyer. Of course, if you drink them early, no problem...but then, are they worth the premium? Oh, whatever.
It's a difficult one, and of course it's a conundrum that applies at many estates. I did observe that the 2018s have been bottled with really nice, dense, unbleached corks from Trescases, which should stack the decks somewhat more in their favor. But premox at Dauvissat is an interesting one, in that I never had an oxidized bottle in France, where I drink a lot of the wines—including many recent bottles of 2008, all pristine. By contrast, in the UK and US I have had quite a few oxidized bottles from that vintage. Even if wines tend to show better "sur place" in general, that seems to be especially acute in Dauvissat's case. This has sometimes made me wonder if the issue is malolactic instability (exacerbated by transport) rather than classic premox. But it's hard to say. Certainly, in terms of winemaking practices, they do everything right, so if there is a weak link there, it would have to be at the bottling line or an issue with closures.

Hi William,

Just adding a comment here: It is often a stated fact, but - especially with Dauvissat, I experience that Magnums, even from the "worst" premox issued vintages from the estate, have been holding up spectacularly well compared to 0,75L sized bottles. My reason for stating this, is that I've been lucky enough to taste about 50 different magnums from Dauvissat from the period 1990-2013 over the last ten years, checking my books, only one have shown overtly advanced elements. While the same sample-ratio with 0,75L bottles have shown higher level of qualitative variation. But, to further confirm your position, visiting him last summer, I was happy to discover day old bottles of "suspect" vintages in his cellar, holding up extremely fresh and vivid when tasting through them. and the 18's was quite spectacular from barrel. Will e a joy to follow over the next decade.

With kind regards,
Alexander

Ps. I am in the business, and I am working with Dauvissat wines.
ITB - MGS

kristofstevens
Posts: 184
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 3:25 am

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#26 Post by kristofstevens » March 15th, 2020, 2:00 pm

I've only had problematic bottles from Dauvissat from 2008 to 2014 (haven't opened any younger ones). I also discussed this with several sommeliers and wine friends. If the problem would be worsened by transport than this should not be the sole cause as I've had 2008 Clos in 2016 in Beaune from a reputed restaurant and the sommelier told me all his 2008 had a similar problem. We opened a 2014 instead which was really fabulous.

john stimson
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3453
Joined: January 24th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Location: seattle

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#27 Post by john stimson » March 15th, 2020, 9:48 pm

Alexander Hojem wrote:
March 15th, 2020, 1:24 pm
William Kelley wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 7:55 am
Robert Grenley wrote:
February 12th, 2020, 6:56 pm
After some nicely premoxed Dauvissat”s, I believe in 2008 vintage, and hearing that they are in some degree of denial, and with the Grand Crus now in our marketplace at over $200 per bottle, I am no longer a buyer. Of course, if you drink them early, no problem...but then, are they worth the premium? Oh, whatever.
It's a difficult one, and of course it's a conundrum that applies at many estates. I did observe that the 2018s have been bottled with really nice, dense, unbleached corks from Trescases, which should stack the decks somewhat more in their favor. But premox at Dauvissat is an interesting one, in that I never had an oxidized bottle in France, where I drink a lot of the wines—including many recent bottles of 2008, all pristine. By contrast, in the UK and US I have had quite a few oxidized bottles from that vintage. Even if wines tend to show better "sur place" in general, that seems to be especially acute in Dauvissat's case. This has sometimes made me wonder if the issue is malolactic instability (exacerbated by transport) rather than classic premox. But it's hard to say. Certainly, in terms of winemaking practices, they do everything right, so if there is a weak link there, it would have to be at the bottling line or an issue with closures.

Hi William,

Just adding a comment here: It is often a stated fact, but - especially with Dauvissat, I experience that Magnums, even from the "worst" premox issued vintages from the estate, have been holding up spectacularly well compared to 0,75L sized bottles. My reason for stating this, is that I've been lucky enough to taste about 50 different magnums from Dauvissat from the period 1990-2013 over the last ten years, checking my books, only one have shown overtly advanced elements. While the same sample-ratio with 0,75L bottles have shown higher level of qualitative variation. But, to further confirm your position, visiting him last summer, I was happy to discover day old bottles of "suspect" vintages in his cellar, holding up extremely fresh and vivid when tasting through them. and the 18's was quite spectacular from barrel. Will e a joy to follow over the next decade.

With kind regards,
Alexander

Ps. I am in the business, and I am working with Dauvissat wines.
Thank you for the input, Alexander, but the fact is for most of the rest of us around the world, the wines have had a problem from 2008 on. This includes us in the US, and others in Europe (eg Belgium). I have bought since 1990, and intensively from 2002 on. I've not a had a problem until suddenly in 2008 (a few 2007's, but mostly OK). I have always bought from the same distribution channels (bought straight from my retailer and straight into a temp controlled cellar). It is pretty clear that the problem is not transport/exposure, etc. It's a change with the wine, the winemaking, or the closure. I've tried to find out more, but have been unsuccessful. Perhaps you, who work with Vincent, can find out more. The wines that stay at the estate seem to be the last to premox, as they are likely exposed to less oxidative stress, but what gets sent out to the world is the true measure.

Alexander Hojem
Posts: 5
Joined: June 1st, 2014, 1:48 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#28 Post by Alexander Hojem » March 16th, 2020, 6:04 am

Hi Mr. Stimson,

I am more in line with Williams opinion related to Malolactic instability, it is a quite different way of behaviour with Dauvissat wines compared to others, so therefore I am open for other "problems". Just because bottles that have not travelled far/not travelled at all have impeccable qualities.

Personally I have had problematic bottles from vintages before 08, - e.g. 00 and 01.

kind regards,
Alexander
ITB - MGS

john stimson
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3453
Joined: January 24th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Location: seattle

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#29 Post by john stimson » March 16th, 2020, 9:29 pm

It's an interesting discussion. Herwig in Belgium has had significant premox, and that doesn't seem very far away from France to me. And all of my premoxed Dauvissat bottles taste exactly like the premox in Leflaive, Colin-Deleger, and any number of other premoxed burgs we've all experienced. I wonder what the flavor profiles of a wine with malolactic instability would be? I would actually be interested to know, if anyone could describe those wines for us.

I don't doubt the pristine wines you and William have had in France, but for those of us elsewhere, the wines aren't holding up like they used to. Again I would wonder what changes have been made at the estate that could possibly account for this.

User avatar
billnanson
Posts: 1439
Joined: October 22nd, 2010, 11:08 am
Location: Bern and Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#30 Post by billnanson » March 17th, 2020, 4:57 am

john stimson wrote:
March 15th, 2020, 9:48 pm
The wines that stay at the estate seem to be the last to premox, as they are likely exposed to less oxidative stress, but what gets sent out to the world is the true measure.
Hi John,
Can we attempt to define what you mean by oxidative stress? - Clearly over time, a cork allows oxygen transport, but over a short period (in the life of most VDs wines) of transport the inside of the bottle should be homogenous - the contents will clearly be mobile - so well mixed - whether in a boat or a truck, unlike those in the cellar of origin - but what do you perceive as the 'oxidative stress?'

Temperature stress I understand - I unwittingly made this experiment myself over the last couple of years - and the warmer stored wines were all prematurely aged and quite uninteresting versus those kept in the cellar
Burgundy Report - online since 2002...

john stimson
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3453
Joined: January 24th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Location: seattle

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#31 Post by john stimson » March 17th, 2020, 8:57 am

Bill--"oxidative stress" is probably a bit of a sloppy term, but to me it sort of summarizes a concept. I think of every bottle of wine as having a certain capacity to deal with oxygen before it becomes noticeably oxidized to our palates. this varies per bottle depending upon a number of factors (like amount of sulfur used, things like glutathione, various wine making decisions and practices, and whole bunch of other stuff, most of which I don't really understand). when the "buffering capacity" (sorry, this is also a bit sloppy) of that bottle is exceeded, then the wine becomes premoxed.

I think wines that travel are exposed to more oxidative stress, primarily because of strain on the closure (most often cork). no matter how careful you are, there are temperature changes when a bottle goes from the cellar, to being stacked outside on the crush pad for pick-up, to riding in a truck to the warehouse, then to the dock, then a ship, then another warehouse, then another truck, etc. and what about the pressure changes if a wine has been air transported? all of this puts strain on the closure, and the weak link is the variability in cork quality/permeability, or defects (which I think we all suspect is why some bottles in a case end up premixed, and others do not.)

There might be other ways that transport could affect a wine (vibration, heat damage, etc) but I don't think these result in an oxidized wine.

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#32 Post by William Kelley » March 17th, 2020, 9:40 am

My notion was that even a little malolactic activity in bottle might burn up the wines' free sulfur and make them more susceptible to oxidation... But it would be interesting to have a chemist's perspective on that.

Last night, with a friend who buys direct from the domaine, I drank a pristine 2005 Forets - it was everything a great bottle of Dauvissat should be. But I continue to be very lucky with Dauvissat: a week before, a friend of mine from Norway had a premoxed 1999 Preuses.

I was due to visit on the 23rd and planned to take the opportunity to discuss such matters, but that will have to wait now.
The Wine Advocate

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#33 Post by Carl Steefel » March 17th, 2020, 10:19 am

I can see how William's notion of continued malolactic activity could affect things, just don't clearly see why relatively short distance transport (e.g., to Belgium) would affect that.

Otherwise, leaving outright heat damage aside (how hot does it get in Belgium?), I would think it is more as John describes it, some form on stress on the closure. Whether very mild temperature excursions (that don't actually "heat damage" the wine), or vibration. As discussed in the literature, some or even much of the oxidation may occur early as a result of O2 trapped initially in the cork. Normally the thought is that this is driven into the wine when the closure is put into place (squeezing the pores of the cork), but perhaps this is a more delicate process than we think.

The other issue is what the failure by year really is. If just 2008, I don't see how to easily blame this on truck transport, or the like. Seems more likely to be some more complex chemistry issue. I have had recent bottles of 2002 Dauvissat that were excellent, and a 2007 Dauvissat Clos that was aging very slowly and gracefully.

john stimson
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3453
Joined: January 24th, 2010, 8:11 pm
Location: seattle

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#34 Post by john stimson » March 17th, 2020, 7:09 pm

Thanks for everyone's input here. It will interesting to see if Vincent has any input here when folks are finally able to visit again. One of the interesting things for me here is that for me this problem showed up so late on the premox spectrum--most producers were struggling with this 8-10 years earlier in terms of white burgundy, and even in Chablis (eg Fevre). why is it not appearing until 2008 with Dauvissat (at least for me)?

User avatar
alan weinberg
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 12738
Joined: April 25th, 2009, 1:23 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#35 Post by alan weinberg » March 17th, 2020, 7:50 pm

kristofstevens wrote:
March 15th, 2020, 2:00 pm
I've only had problematic bottles from Dauvissat from 2008 to 2014 (haven't opened any younger ones). I also discussed this with several sommeliers and wine friends. If the problem would be worsened by transport than this should not be the sole cause as I've had 2008 Clos in 2016 in Beaune from a reputed restaurant and the sommelier told me all his 2008 had a similar problem. We opened a 2014 instead which was really fabulous.
95 and 96 from half bottles were an issue for me beginning a decade ago. Still have a dozen. Mostly Clos.

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#36 Post by William Kelley » March 18th, 2020, 7:18 am

alan weinberg wrote:
March 17th, 2020, 7:50 pm
95 and 96 from half bottles were an issue for me beginning a decade ago. Still have a dozen. Mostly Clos.
96 and 08 are the two years with which I've had the most premox, yet also the years where, when drinking them in France and more particularly Chablis and in Beaune, I have never had an oxidized bottle. Given that they were both years with very high malic acid levels, and that I know that analytically neither completed malolactic fermentation, you'll see the train of my reasoning alluded to earlier in the thread!

TBC when I have a chance to talk to Vincent...
The Wine Advocate

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#37 Post by Carl Steefel » March 18th, 2020, 9:06 am

alan weinberg wrote:
March 17th, 2020, 7:50 pm
kristofstevens wrote:
March 15th, 2020, 2:00 pm
I've only had problematic bottles from Dauvissat from 2008 to 2014 (haven't opened any younger ones). I also discussed this with several sommeliers and wine friends. If the problem would be worsened by transport than this should not be the sole cause as I've had 2008 Clos in 2016 in Beaune from a reputed restaurant and the sommelier told me all his 2008 had a similar problem. We opened a 2014 instead which was really fabulous.
95 and 96 from half bottles were an issue for me beginning a decade ago. Still have a dozen. Mostly Clos.
Wow, a little surprised you still have so many of the 1996. The 96 was drinking beautifully a few years ago, although perhaps not yet tertiary. Tanzer tasted this within the last year, and after reading his notes, I could not help wondering if that bottling was starting to move past its prime (but there are my own prejudices creeping in).

User avatar
William Kelley
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 1:36 am
Location: London, Calistoga & Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#38 Post by William Kelley » March 18th, 2020, 9:20 am

Carl Steefel wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 9:06 am
Wow, a little surprised you still have so many of the 1996. The 96 was drinking beautifully a few years ago, although perhaps not yet tertiary. Tanzer tasted this within the last year, and after reading his notes, I could not help wondering if that bottling was starting to move past its prime (but there are my own prejudices creeping in).
It's no where near past its prime from the cellar of Hostellerie des Clos in Chablis, but it might well be anywhere else. At the end of the day, the 1997 is a safer bet.
The Wine Advocate

User avatar
billnanson
Posts: 1439
Joined: October 22nd, 2010, 11:08 am
Location: Bern and Beaune

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#39 Post by billnanson » March 18th, 2020, 9:24 am

William Kelley wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 9:20 am
At the end of the day, the 1997 is a safer bet.
Yep, except when they are corked, like my Forêts last month...
Burgundy Report - online since 2002...

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#40 Post by Carl Steefel » March 18th, 2020, 9:48 am

William Kelley wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 9:20 am
Carl Steefel wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 9:06 am
Wow, a little surprised you still have so many of the 1996. The 96 was drinking beautifully a few years ago, although perhaps not yet tertiary. Tanzer tasted this within the last year, and after reading his notes, I could not help wondering if that bottling was starting to move past its prime (but there are my own prejudices creeping in).
It's no where near past its prime from the cellar of Hostellerie des Clos in Chablis, but it might well be anywhere else. At the end of the day, the 1997 is a safer bet.
I had my one bottle in 2008 as I recall, in Auxerre not far from Chablis. Then it was just starting to turn secondary, with distinct white flower and honey character starting to show. Another prominent taster from the Bay Area had it 4-5 years ago and went off his gourd over it. So perhaps I was just trying to understand or rationalize why Tanzer underrated the wine...

User avatar
alan weinberg
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 12738
Joined: April 25th, 2009, 1:23 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#41 Post by alan weinberg » March 18th, 2020, 10:07 am

Carl Steefel wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 9:06 am
alan weinberg wrote:
March 17th, 2020, 7:50 pm
kristofstevens wrote:
March 15th, 2020, 2:00 pm
I've only had problematic bottles from Dauvissat from 2008 to 2014 (haven't opened any younger ones). I also discussed this with several sommeliers and wine friends. If the problem would be worsened by transport than this should not be the sole cause as I've had 2008 Clos in 2016 in Beaune from a reputed restaurant and the sommelier told me all his 2008 had a similar problem. We opened a 2014 instead which was really fabulous.
95 and 96 from half bottles were an issue for me beginning a decade ago. Still have a dozen. Mostly Clos.
Wow, a little surprised you still have so many of the 1996. The 96 was drinking beautifully a few years ago, although perhaps not yet tertiary. Tanzer tasted this within the last year, and after reading his notes, I could not help wondering if that bottling was starting to move past its prime (but there are my own prejudices creeping in).
50 degree cellar though half bottles.

Carl Steefel
Posts: 1138
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 3:45 pm

Re: 2018 Dauvissat

#42 Post by Carl Steefel » March 18th, 2020, 10:55 am

Hah. Like Bern's Steak House.

I had my lone bottle from Auxerre, where I am pretty sure the average temperature would be 55F (deep cellar in France)...

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”