On Thursday March 14, 2019 fourteen of us gathered at Drago Centro Restaurant in downtown Los Angeles for the second night of the 2011 White Burgundy Vintage Assessment and Oxidation Check dinners. 2019 was our 14th year of holding these dinners. As usual, we tasted the vintage then 7.5 years from the date of harvest. We usually taste 60 to 75 of the top wines from the vintage over the course of three nights.
On night two we tasted twenty-nine wines mostly from the hyphenated grand cru vineyards of Bienvenues and Criots-Batard Montrachet, Batard Montrachet and Chevalier Montrachet. We also included two ringers (which I enjoy trying to select to be educational, but as undetectable as possible.) As usual, all of the wines were served single blind (with ringers being double blind), and all voting was completely blind by bottle number with the reveal at the end of the evening.
Sommelier Paul Sherman, who was formerly the wine director at Valentino, where many of our past dinners took place, was again present at Drago Centro to orchestrate everything, along with help from Drago’s Somm Fabio Lai.
The View from the outside of the “Vault Room” at Drago Centro
This dinner was held in the former vault room of national bank located in downtown Los Angeles, which is now part of Drago Centro restaurant. It has its own separate event kitchen. Paul Sherman got the room configured for our second dinner with its huge number of stems with lots of working space in front of us. In this photo, the view is taken at the end of the night from outside the room after we’ve unbagged all of the wines and they were lined up along the counter.
Here’s a view of all of us ‘hard at work’ as we evaluated the first flight of wines from Bienvenues and Criots Batard Montrachet. That’s me with my nose buried in a glass.
CHAMPAGNE AND APPETIZERS
2004 Vilmart Coeur de Cuvee (2 bottles)
Very light gold color; light peach and citrus aromas; fairly light, creamy texture with minerals; this is a very subtle, citrus and mineral infused champagne; the finish just sort of trails off. This seemed very different than the 2002 vintage of Vilmart Coeur de Cuvee that I had, which I remember as much more powerful with a central core of minerals. Both bottles of the 2004 were similar. Not what I expected. 92
FLIGHT ONE: CRIOTS AND BBM
Jumbo Scallops Crudo, potato cream, onion jello and truffles
0 [2011 Leflaive Bienvenues Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; light green apple and white flowers aromas; elegant light pear and green apple flavors with a wonderful sweet fruit and minerals finish. Impressive BBM. Three votes for best in flight. A couple of late changes meant we ended up with nine wines for this flight – and still had one more BBM in flight two. (N.B. This was clearly the best Leflaive BBM we’ve had since the 2005 vintage and all three 2011 Leflaives showed well in this dinner.) Group Rank: Tenth, 6 points (0/0/1/0/3) 94
1 [2011 Sauzet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; classic honeysuckle aromas; medium weight elegant pear and green apple flavors; sweet fruit and mineral finish. Very nice, but not as good as No. 0. One taster initially thought this was “skunky.” I took a while to get to it, and I didn’t detect anything. One vote for best in flight. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 93
2 [2011 Jacques Carillon Bienvenues Batard Montrachet]
Light white gold color; closed a bit at first, this developed beautiful white flowers aromas; also initially restrained on the palate, with more air this developed incredibly elegant sweet citrus flavors and a layered impression; lots of minerality here; this just kept getting better and better. Seven votes for best in flight. My No. 6 wine of the night, and it was tough to leave it out of the top five. Group Rank: 4th, 16 points (0/1/2/2/2) 94
3 [2011 Henri Boillot Bienvenues Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; light green apple and white flowers aromas; this initially exhibited a light bodied flavor profile but with more air it definitely seemed to increase in depth and improved in the glass; there was some moderate minerality on the finish. One vote for best in flight. Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 93
4 [2011 Colin-Morey Bienvenues Batard Montrachet
Light gold color; white flowers and honeysuckle aromas; light sweet green apple and citrus flavors that just kept improving with air. One vote for best in flight. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 93+
Paul Sherman pouring a flight of wines
5 [2011 Hubert Lamy Criots Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; another classical honeysuckle aroma but also has some SO2 there – but later this developed a cardboard element in the aromas; Liz Lee initially said it’s corked and I think she’s right; others thought this was some kind of chemical flaw instead of being corked – I think partly because it wasn’t immediately obvious when the bottle was poured; the wine was very light on the palate, but as with most corked bottles you couldn’t get past the aromas. The consensus was this is chemically flawed but three of us thought it was corked. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) DQ - corked
6 [2011 Jadot Bienvenues Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; a very sappy, wood resin type aroma, reminiscent of turpentine; there was some relatively rich fruit flavor on the palate initially, but it had a very sharp, bitter edge and was notably woody. Something seems to have gone horribly wrong here from a chemical perspective. Consensus: chemically off. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) DQ – chemically off
7 [2011 Pernot Bienvenues Batard Montrachet]
This has the darkest color of this flight, but is still only medium gold color; some apricot aromas (clearly advanced); rich apricot and apple flavors on the palate. This is still drinkable, if you don’t mind apricot in your Bienvenues (but I do). Everyone agreed that this was either advanced or oxidized. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 91-Advanaced
8 [2011 Colin-Morey Criots- Batard Montrachet]
Light white gold color; light citrus and white flowers aromas; medium plus weight pear fruit flavors and some real mineral impact – this exhibits more weight/gravitas than I would have expected in this flight; very nice minerally finish. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 93
FLIGHT TWO: BATARD MONTRACHET
Rigatoni kamut, swordfish, and eggplant ragu (Yes, this tasted about as bad as it looked ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
)
9 [2011 Sauzet Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; aromas of white flowers and honeysuckle (did a BBM get mixed in here?); medium weight green apple and pear flavors with extreme elegance and nice minerality in the finish; this is very impressive. Seven votes for best in flight. My number 7 wine of the night. Group Rank: Seventh, 11 points (0/0/2/2/1) 94
10 [2011 Henri Boillot Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; aromas of blood orange (some said apple cider); attractive ready to drink apple flavors, this seemed to get more advanced the longer it was open; other tasters said “apple cider” and “crushed vitamins”; four of us thought this was clearly advanced, but others liked it well enough as is. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 90-advanced
11 [2011 Leflaive Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; white flowers and mint (like Ramonet); nice flavors-medium weight Batard pear/apple, but relatively simple and straight-forward. Four votes for wine of the flight. Group Rank: Tied for 8th, 7 points (0/1/0/1/1) 93
12 [2011 Jean-Marc Pillot Chassagne Montrachet Vergers “Clos St. Marc” (Ringer B-1)]
Light gold color; white flowers and citrus aromas; elegant, very minerally pear flavors; just a little less density than the others, so I suspect this is my ringer, but a very nice wine with some upside. One vote for wine of flight. (N.B. This is from Jean-Marc Pillot’s plot of very old vines within the Clos St. Marc, which is within Chassagne Vergers. It’s consistently grand cru quality wine and a fun ringer for a Batard flight.) Group Rank: Tied for 11th, 4 points (0/0/1/0/1) 93+
13 [2011 Ramonet Bienvenues Batard Montrachet]
Light to medium gold color; light white flowers aromas; not too much complexity on the palate; there is some elegance here, and some glyceral fat/depth, but not much in terms of depth of fruit here – a bit surprising for a Batard actually. (N.B. Yes, this really is a BBM mixed in with the Batard flight – a long story about a Ramonet mixup that we couldn’t fix in time for the dinner.) Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 91
14 [2011 Colin-Morey Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; reductive aromas and some spice; bright, good crisp pear-apple fruit with good acidity and a nice finish. Three votes for wine of flight. Group Rank: Tied for 8th, 7 points (0/0/1/1/2) 93+
15 [2011 Pernot Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; citrus and red apple aromas; ripe red apple flavors – obviously very advanced; a bit flat at the end too. Eight tasters agree this is advanced. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 88-Advanced
16 [2011 Pierre Morey Batard Montrachet]
Light gold color; overtly oxidized aromas; flavors of advanced apple cider and toasted cereal – completely oxidized. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) DQ Oxidized
FLIGHT THREE: CHEVALIER MONTRACHET MONTRACHET (A)
Cioppino, assorted seafood, lobster broth
17 [2011 Bernard Moreau Chevalier Montrachet]
Very light gold color; sweet white flowers and green apple aromas; real sappy, intense fruit with great acidity and abundant minerality; a real WOW wine. Nine votes for best in flight. My No. 2 wine of the night. Group Rank: 1st, 58 points (6/4/2/3/0) 95+
18 [2011 Jadot Chevalier Montrachet Demoiselles]
Another very light, white gold colored wine; incredibly complex white flowers and citrus aromas; intense sweet citrus flavors with a good deal of minerality. Another WOW wine. Four votes for wine of flight. My No. 3 wine of the night. Group Rank: Third, 24 points (1/3/2/0/1) 95
19 [2011 Montille Puligny Caillerets [DIAM] (Ringer CHV-1)]
Light gold color; initially some slightly tropical, sweet white flowers aromas which got less tropical with air; this is a little richer than # 17 or #18, but has very good acidity and real density – impressive. Two votes for wine of flight. Group Rank: Tied for 5th, 14 points (0/3/0/1/0) 94
20 [2011 Francois Carrillon Chevalier Montrachet]
Light gold color; a slightly odd chemical element in the aromas; the flavors seem odd too – almond? Seems to be a lot of new wood in this wine too. Consensus: this has some sort of chemical flaw. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 86? Chemically flawed
21 [2011 Bouchard Chevalier Montrachet (DIAM)]
Very light gold color; white flowers and lime citrus aromas; elegant, really long but also light. My No. 5 wine of the night. Group Rank: Tied for 5th, 14 points (0/0/2/3/2) 94
22 [2011 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet]
Very light gold color; white flowers aromas; slightly sweet, compelling Chevalier citrus flavors with a sweet uptake on the back end. My number 4 wine of the night. (N.B. Without doubt, the best Leflaive Chevy that I have had since the 2002 vintage, although very different in style than the Leflaive wines from 1985 to 2005.) Group Rank: tied for 11th, 4 points (0/0/0/2/0) 94+
FLIGHT FOUR: CHEVALIER MONTRACHET MONTRACHET (B)
Pan roasted breast of duck, Kumquat sauce
23 [2011 Marc Morey Chevalier Montrachet]
Light gold color, but deeper than the others in flights 3 and 4; fairly concentrated white flowers aromas; slightly sweet, attractive citrus flavors with lots of elegance – but in the back half of the palate this seems advanced. The longer this sat, the more advanced it got. Consensus: advanced. (N.B. Marc Morey Chevy has been very trouble free over the years, so this bottle was an unpleasant surprise.) Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 91-Advanced
24 [2011 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet]
Darkest color of the last two flights – medium plus gold; pretty obviously advanced aromas and flavors. Consensus advanced. Group Rank: tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 87-Advanced
25 [2011 Ramonet Chevalier Montrachet]
Between light and medium gold color; clean, light lemon and lemon oil aromas; seemed concentrated on the front of the palate but dull back end which is very off and bitter. The consensus was that this wine is flawed and is off and bitter. Group Rank: Tied for 14th (last), 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 90-Chemically Flawed
26 [2011 Colin-Morey Chevalier Montrachet]
Light gold color; light citrus and green apple aromas; some real intensity of fruit and minerals here; incredible wine. My wine of the night without doubt. Thirteen votes for best in flight. Group Rank: 2nd, 56 points (8/3/1/0/1) 96
27 [2011 Sauzet Chevalier Montrachet]
Light gold color; some lightly reductive, meyer lemon and lemon peel aromas; very bright, lemon-lime citrus flavors; a nice wine but not as good as # 26. Group Rank: Tied for 14th, 0 points (0/0/0/0/0) 93
28 [2011 Dancer Chevalier Montrachet]
Light yellow-green color; super-reductive – heavy petrol aromas; seems permanently stuck or reductive; not sure this could ever improve. Consensus: excessive reduction, flawed. Group Rank: 13th, 3 points (0/0/1/0/0) DQ-excessively reduced-flawed
DESSERT COURSE
Dark chocolate cremeaux, cocoa almond, milk chocolate Chantilly
2002 Christoffel Urziger Wurtgarten Eiswein
Medium gold color; orange and maple syrup aromas; very long, not fat, precise orange and maple syrup flavors and minerality with a nice finish. 94
Some general comments on what we experienced in the night two dinner and some comments on the producers’ wines that we tasted —
• We experienced a very large divergence in the number of oxidized and advanced wines during the 2011 vintage. We encountered very little premox on night one, and none at all on night three (the only other time this happened was with the 2007 vintage), but we had a large percentage of premox on night two. It demonstrates the risk of judging a vintage based on wines from a limited number of samples or just a few of the appellations. (Hard to figure….)
• We also experienced the largest number of bottles ever which seemed to have reduction problems or serious chemical flaws. A total of 11 of the 29 wines we tasted on night two either had premox problems or some type of reduction–related issue or a serious chemical flaw. We didn’t have numbers like that on night one or night three, or in prior years, but this dinner certainly confirmed for me that reductive winemaking, while it may help to avoid premox issues, can also lead to issues of its own.
• The DIAM closed wines continued to perform flawlessly from a premox perspective. Once again, there were no oxidized or advanced bottles closed with DIAM. There were also no unusual or unexpected aromas, but we did have one bottle of Jadot Bienvenues which had strong wood resin aromas and woody flavors. Those aromas did not appear to be related to the DIAM closure – the aroma was akin to turpentine. However, one California winemaker in another thread about DIAM, who has a very good knowledge of organic chemistry, suggested that there is at least a possibility of something in the nature of wood resin developing as type of reduction aroma. To date though, we’ve experienced nothing closed with DIAM which appeared to have excessive reduction aromas of any type.
• My overall impression remains that the 2011 vintage is a solid, technically correct vintage. With a handful of notable exceptions, it does not have as much density and weight as the 2009 and 2010 vintages, but there are a handful of 2011 that are flat out terrific and as good or better than their counterparts from 2008 to 2010.
• The flight of 2011 Criots/BBM was maybe the best overall flight of those wines we have ever had. Carillon was again the favorite of the flight as it usually is.
• Jadot – The 2011 vintage, with DIAM enclosures used for the first time, has been a stunning success for Jadot. Three of the four Jadot wines we tasted on night one or night two finished in the top three wines rated by the group for each night. Jadot is back on my “buy” list for their top wines starting with 2011. DIAM will probably restore Jadot’s reputation, but the badly flawed 2011 Bienvenues proved that you can still have bad wines despite DIAM.
• Colin-Morey – A very solid performance once again. The Chevalier Montrachet was spectacular. In my view, it is probably the best Chevalier that Pierre Yves has made through the 2011 vintage. The MP on night one was also the best MP we have tasted from PYCM at these dinners as well. The Corton Charlemagne on night one was also extraordinary. The Criots, Bienvenues and Batard, and the Meursault Charmes tasted on night one, while all very good, were not quite as exciting.
• Bernard Moreau – This was the first time we have included a Bernard Moreau Chevalier, and it was absolutely stunning. A very impressive Chevalier.
• Montille and Chateau de Puligny Montrachet – An impressive performance from Etienne and Alix de Montille. The Montille Puligny Caillerets was served as a ringer in a flight of Chevalier Montrachets. The wine was spectacular in context and nobody identified it as an obvious ringer in a flight of Chevaliers, which is exactly what I had hoped. (As you may have observed, I frequently include adjacent 1er vineyards as ringers.) The Puligny Caillerets tied for No. 5 overall on night two and it shocked a few people when it was unbagged.
• Domaine Leflaive and Olivier Leflaive – amazingly, all three wines from Domaine Leflaive on night two were very good to excellent and not advanced or oxidized, though the style isn’t remotely the same as it used to be. It was the best showing for Domaine Leflaive since 2002.
• Henri Boillot - It’s like a broken record, but at every dinner, year after year, there are invariably advanced wines from Henri Boillot. One out of two on night one. One out of two on night two. I continue to include the Henri Boillot wines because the attendees continue to buy them and Boillot has large public following and continues to draw praise from the wine critics, but frankly I have a hard time understanding why. Boillot does not acknowledge that his wines have premox problems and he never discusses with the critics any steps by the Domaine to try to resolve the obvious and overwhelming premox issues. So why does he continue to get a pass from the critics? The grand cru wines from this Domaine sell for absurdly high prices and yet have huge premox risk.
• Ramonet - Without question the 2011 vintage dinners were the least impressive showing for Ramonet since the premox disaster vintages in 1996 and 1999. I’m hoping that the Chevalier we tasted on night two was an off bottle, but that was clearly the worst example of a Ramonet Chevy I’ve ever tasted and Ramonet has been my favorite Chevalier in all but one vintage prior to 2011.
• Dancer – An enigma. Dancer is capable of producing spectacular wines (e.g., the 2010 MP, which was the group’s favorite wine at night one dinner for the 2010 vintage), yet Dancer is also capable of producing horribly flawed wines, and in the past, oxidized wines. Both the Chevalier and Meursault Perrieres were disasters in 2011, so the jury is still out on Dancer.
• Pernot – Both the Batard and BBM were advanced. These wines seem to have notably declined in quality since the 2007 vintage and are too often advanced.
• Pierre Morey – Another oxidized bottle from Pierre Morey. Since the 1996 vintage [corrected from 1989] I don’t believe that I’ve ever tasted a Pierre Morey wine that was older than seven years that wasn’t oxidized or advanced. It is really difficult to believe that the man who made all of those reductive and amazingly long-lived wines from Domaine Leflaive manages to produce one premox disaster after another from his own winery. Yes, I realize that the wine-making methods and barrel aging regime are completely different.
A total of 38% of the 29 bottles we tasted on night two either had premox problems or reduction/chemical problems. As noted, this is far, far worse than night one or night three of the 2011 dinners, but the numbers for nights one and two combined still yielded a defect rate between 25% (group numbers) and 31% (my numbers). So, we are clearly not out of the woods yet.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[worship.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/9/99a8907a1d5b3c023582052741dc72dc9823c044.gif "worship"){kind=small}
This is a really great service. Too bad many of the paid publications out there do so little of this. Kudos to Don for publishing this analysis for FREE here. Certainly guides my buying decisions. Begs the question, why don’t the pros go back more often to assess the early reads they had on vintages/producers?