Premox % from 540 white Burgundy tasting notes

It is very difficult to estimate the actual % of premoxed wines a Domaine really sells . Anecdotal data are what they are , it’s impossible to conclude anything based on 1 or 2 tastings.
But my wine club gets together once-a-month and mostly drinks Burgundy . We post our tasting notes so we have a data base .
I calculated the white burgundies we tasted over the last 10 years , details below .

Overall , we have 540 individual tasting notes from most vintages starting with 2002 up to 2015 . Of those wines , 67 were premoxed . I think this % seems about right with my subjective feeling from tasting over the last years .
For some reason , we drink a lot of Henri Boillot and PYCM … but I included all the domaines with at least 10 tasting notes . ( non-oxidised versus oxidised )

Henri Boillot : 64-7
PYCM : 44-4
Coche Dury : 46-0
Raveneau : 25-1
Leflaive : 22-7
Paul Pernot : 20-2
Comte Lafon : 19-3
Le Moine : 19-3
Vincent Girardin : 18-1
Ramonet : 18-2
Vincent Dauvissat : 18-4
d’Auvenay : 17-0
Louis Carillon : 17-4
Sauzet : 12-4
Henri Germain : 11-1
Jean Marc Boillot : 11-0
Guy Roulot : 10-5
Jacques Carillon : 10-0
Marc Colin : 9-1
Pierre Morey/Morey Blanc : 9-4
Faiveley : 8-2
Fevre : 9-1
Jadot : 6-4

Domaines with less than 10 wines tasted but with interesting scores :
Arnaud Ente : 7-0
Boisson valet : 7-0
Paul Pillot : 7-1
Jadot : 6-4
DRC : 7-1

Interesting , no ? If I would exclude the 2005 vintage , I think the numbers will probably get below 10 % overall . But for white burgundy insiders , I don’t think this list is a surprise .

almost 50/50 on Jadot yikes

I have not seen a compilation like this for Don’s dinners, but your experiences seem very similar to those from his dinners. Calls into question (1) people saying the issue is different in the US from Europe and (2) Don’s dinners aren’t truly representative of the wineries.

Herwig, can you tell from your notes which producers have gotten notably better or worse over time?

More like 66.6%, right?

LeFlaive - Ouch. Although not surprised.

George

Very interesting post, thank you!

OP’s “non oxidisedd versus oxidized” - reads as 6 good, 4 bad to me. 40% oxidized.

I read it as 6 tasted, 4 oxidized.

Sorry , it’s 10 tasted , 6 are ok and 4 not

Howard , I’m not sure . I know Jadot is better now since using Diam . The Belgian importer claims he saw zero Jadot premox after 2011 . But my experience is very similar to Don’s .

The surprise , or maybe not , is Roulot . A lot of premox . Then again , last week in NY , tasting with my friend Chet , I brought a 2008 Roulot Charmes . Premox…

too bad. I don’t buy Roulot as the wines are too expensive in the US. I do drink them in restaurants sometimes when I am in Burgundy.

The one wine in your group that surprised me was Henri Boillot. I have experienced more premox with these wines - don’t know storage on the wines I have tasted as I don’t buy them.

This is good info, thank you for taking the time to compile and share. Cheers. champagne.gif

Hi Herwig;

Interesting compilation of results and agree no great surprises and thank you for taking the time to post.
07 PYCM Genevrieres was not affected though 02 Lafon Perrieres we drank was clear colored but far advanced.
Hard to believe we are still discussing premox so many years later. But the reward of a properly aged white burgundy gives to me the greatest wine experience, often imitated never duplicated.

Fortunately I’ve protected my old white burgundies with lots of Blancs de Blanc Champagne both grower and Grand Marques, and as they age they are reminiscent of old white mature white burgundies with almost no issues except for very minor amounts of cork taint effected bottles.

Unfolding and being opened this upcoming week in NYC will be extraordinary amounts and of old and young white burgundy. I’ll be sure to report …

Yes Chet please do report back. I’m with you on the greatness of aged white burgundy - it’s an experience that can’t be duplicated with other wines.

Chet,

I have not seen you in these parts in a long time. Hope that you are doing well.

Thanks for posting, Herwig - this is a fascinating compilation. In view of some of the high risk rates, have you ever written to the producers asking for reimbursements of affected bottles or for guarantees in the event that their wine should turn out to be premoxed?

I was struck by Domaine Leflaive’s record, not least because I have just read an article in the March edition of La Revue des Vins de France, which states that although they were not responsible for the wines at the time, the current people in charge, Brice de la Morandière and Pierre Vincent, fully accept that oxidized wines were produced, mainly in the 1990s (this is my translation - the original version is: “Même s’ils n’en sont pas responsables, ils assument pleinement l’oxydation de ces cuvées produites par le domaine, principalement dans les années 90…”).

The article goes on to say that the domain has reconditioned 90% of the 20 000 bottles of Grand Crus and 1er Cru Puligny-Montrachet in their cellars, in vintages starting from 1980, to 2009, with new “technically neutral” corks (probably something like Diam). This would seem to imply that 90% of the wines were defective - and that there are a huge amount of defective wines either in private collections or changing hands at auction.

I’ve always been astounded at the apparent insouciance of white Burgundy producers, so to read that someone is doing something practical is excellent - but I wonder if they will take this to where it should go - the reimbursement or replacement of the defective bottles already sold. It sounds suspiciously like Ducru-Beaucaillou’s reconditioning of their old stock from the late 80s - put on sale with a quality guarantee, but with no such offer for those unlucky enough to have the defective bottles already.

Another variable here is the average age at which different producer’s wines were opened. For example, I might guess the average PYCM was opened younger than the average Leflaive, just since PYCM hasn’t been around that long and hasn’t become a sought after wine until even more recently.

And then the overall number would depend a lot on how young the wines were when opened. It would be interesting to filter the results so as to exclude all bottles opened at, say, 6 years or younger. A 4 or 5 year old bottle not being premoxed doesn’t really speak to the percentage of bottles from that producer, or white Burgundy in general, that will become flawed.

Having said that, I love the compilation and information.

I haven’t seen the article, but I think you’re misunderstanding it. When they recondition, they will discard the bad bottles and top off/recork all the good ones. I expect the 90% number is either the proportion of total bottles in their cellar they chose to recondition (for example excluding below 1er Cru or some other wines), or the proportion of reconditioned bottles that remain in the cellar after this effort. Either way, it doesn’t tell you how many bottles were bad.

Craig, the 90% of 20K part was crystal clear and only concerned GCs and the bottles of Puligny, as I wrote. That does sound to me as if only 10% needed no reconditioning! Where you could well be right, however, is that of the 90%, we don’t know how many needed anything more than a safe cork, although one could wonder why 10% didn’t! Nor does it confirm how many damaged bottles are out there - that was me speculating - but in view of the prices I wouldn’t go near any!

Thank you for the PSA!