1982 burg vintage?

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

1982 burg vintage?

#1 Post by Berry Crawford » September 16th, 2012, 2:29 pm

Any good? What is the vintage character like?

Thanks for reading.

Rex Northen
Posts: 71
Joined: May 20th, 2010, 1:03 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#2 Post by Rex Northen » September 16th, 2012, 2:39 pm

I had an 82 DRC Richebourg about 5 years ago that was just stunning. Fully mature with aromatics that filled the room. I got it and a bottle of RC from a mixed case that was split among friends and had been held by a retailer in temperature controlled storage since release. All the bottles have been stellar.

M Kelly
Posts: 1095
Joined: August 9th, 2009, 11:18 am
Location: St Louis, MO

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#3 Post by M Kelly » September 16th, 2012, 2:41 pm

I have over a case of Ponnelle Charmes coming...so I hope it's good!
Mike

Paul Savage
Posts: 1407
Joined: May 3rd, 2010, 6:05 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#4 Post by Paul Savage » September 16th, 2012, 5:35 pm

Where's your copy of one of Coates' book? :-)

The '82s were nice but lighter-mid weight wines, adequately ripe though (in my experience). I think producer will be very important, and provenance even more so, as the wines matured rather quickly. But this is from memory, not from Coates! rolleyes I suppose good examples, well stored, could still be lovely, and showing some *real* maturity, something hard to come by with wines since the '88 vintage, when they apparently started paying much more attention to pre-bottling exposure to oxygen. Now, the wines take *forever* to show some age, and that is just a "hope", since I still haven't had any of these more recent vintages that was really "mature" in the old sense, aside from maybe some very lesser vintages (that I've never tried when "older").

User avatar
Mike de Lange
Posts: 1406
Joined: April 30th, 2010, 12:44 pm
Location: Groningen, Netherlands

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#5 Post by Mike de Lange » September 17th, 2012, 12:01 am

Pretty darn good Chablis at the top level, as a mixed case of Dauvissat Clos & Preuses taught me.
ITB, but not in sales

User avatar
James Wright
Posts: 2547
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:24 pm
Location: metro NYC

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#6 Post by James Wright » September 17th, 2012, 2:11 am

Serafin's Charmes Chambertin stunningly delicious, Robert Jayer-Gilles's Échézeaux rather pure and spicy, nicely textured; de Merode Corton Bressandes meaty and sappy, surprising depth to it—

those were the ones that stood out among a lot of pleasant and fun-to-drink wines.
~ Verteidiger der Wahrheit ~

User avatar
Frank H Herfjord
Posts: 161
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 8:48 am

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#7 Post by Frank H Herfjord » September 17th, 2012, 2:19 am

I've only had two bottles. One was a Hospices de Beaune Beaune villages that was shockingly good. Meo Camuzet clos de vougeot about two years ago was also very good.
Visit me, come share a bottle.

User avatar
Roger Nellans
Posts: 1759
Joined: June 20th, 2009, 11:33 am
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#8 Post by Roger Nellans » September 17th, 2012, 7:31 am

I opened an 82 Delegrange-Bachelet CM Caillerets a couple of years ago. It was served at the beginning of a tasting with no expectations. Deep golden color. Upon opening, there was a slight hint of oxidation which seemed to lessen with some air and did not detract from the wine. The wine still had some life in it with pretty nice balance. A surprise and quite enjoyable.
Roger Nellans

User avatar
Jeremy Holmes
Posts: 7104
Joined: April 28th, 2010, 3:50 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#9 Post by Jeremy Holmes » September 17th, 2012, 3:50 pm

I haven't had that many 82's but the following over the past two years were all most excellent: 82 Rousseau Beze, 82 Jayer Gilles Echezeaux, 82 Henri Jayer Echezeaux and 82 de Courcel Pommard 'Clos des Epenots'. I recently picked up an 82 DRC RSV and have high hopes for it.
ITB

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#10 Post by Berry Crawford » September 17th, 2012, 3:53 pm

Thanks for the feedback. I bought a lowely village level wine and was just curious if it was a poor vintage or not. Im not sure Ive ever heard anyone talk about 1982 in burgundy.

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#11 Post by A.Gillette » September 17th, 2012, 4:38 pm

I've been drinking through a bunch of 82 Ponsot clos de la roche that I bought at auction. It is surprisingly oakey but enjoyable. This is my only experience with the vintage but based on it, I wouldn't hesitate to buy other 82s. I've found that with significant bottle age, quite a few unheralded vintages produce some pretty good burgundies.
A
Alex

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#12 Post by Berry Crawford » September 17th, 2012, 4:56 pm

>It is surprisingly oakey but enjoyable

A number of wines are in my cellar based on the premise that oak is supposed to "melt away" with time. You post worries me.

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#13 Post by A.Gillette » September 17th, 2012, 5:33 pm

Berry Crawford wrote: A number of wines are in my cellar based on the premise that oak is supposed to "melt away" with time. You post worries me.
I didn't try this at release but I assume the oak must have been pretty powerful. I suppose I don't expect oak to melt away as much as I expect it to integrate. I would think that if the other elements of the wine don't stand the test of time, you can be left with something dominated by oak. In this case, I think you probably had a vintage that wasn't particularly wonderful, but wasn't terrible (at least chez ponsot). 30 years down the road, you end up with something pretty nice, but where the underlying material wasn't powerful enough to totally integrate the oak. I've been drinking quite a bit lately that has between 20 and 60 years of age on it. This is the first time the oak has dominated.

A
Alex

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#14 Post by Claude Kolm » September 17th, 2012, 5:57 pm

Ponsot uses NO new oak.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#15 Post by Berry Crawford » September 17th, 2012, 5:58 pm

Claude Kolm wrote:Ponsot uses NO new oak.
But did they in 1982?

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#16 Post by Berry Crawford » September 17th, 2012, 6:07 pm

Alex Gillette wrote:
Berry Crawford wrote:I suppose I don't expect oak to melt away as much as I expect it to integrate....I've been drinking quite a bit lately that has between 20 and 60 years of age on it. This is the first time the oak has dominated.
I too have not noticed overt oak on older wines so thats what I based my idea on that oak melts away (or integrates or whatever semantics we want to use). To hear of such an old wine being dominated by oak made me question my sample size. Sounds like you have had a similar result overall.

I wonder if it could be something other than oak. Ponost certainly doesnt use new oak now. How about back then?

Last year I made some california Pinot Noir and at one stage it had a somewhat woody aroma to my great suprise given that it never saw oak at all. It made me realize that maybe Im not as sure as I thought I was about all the facets Pinot Noir can have on its own. Char and cola/maple/vanila elements are certainly oak derived but now when I notice "wood" I just note that it smells/taste like wood and dont automatically assume its oak.

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#17 Post by A.Gillette » September 17th, 2012, 7:06 pm

Berry Crawford wrote:
Claude Kolm wrote:Ponsot uses NO new oak.
But did they in 1982?
I don't think the domaine has used new oak (even pre-Laurent). But that doesn't mean that the wines can't be oakey. And this one was.
A
Alex

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#18 Post by Claude Kolm » September 17th, 2012, 7:55 pm

Alex Gillette wrote:
Berry Crawford wrote:
Claude Kolm wrote:Ponsot uses NO new oak.
But did they in 1982?
I don't think the domaine has used new oak (even pre-Laurent). But that doesn't mean that the wines can't be oakey. And this one was.
A
I didn't start visiting until about 1995.

The oldest source I can find that reports on the amount of new oak is Remington Norman in 1993. He says 20% new oak. AFAIK, stems (which sometimes can import aspects confused with new oak) have not been used since way, way back. Norman singles out the 1982s (and 1986s) as being particularly weak at Ponsot.

Edit: I spoke to Laurent Ponsot yesterday and he said that Norman was mistaken about the Domaine having used 20% new oak at one time.
Last edited by Claude Kolm on November 1st, 2012, 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

User avatar
Keith Levenberg
Posts: 5567
Joined: June 6th, 2009, 3:11 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#19 Post by Keith Levenberg » September 17th, 2012, 8:13 pm

Berry Crawford wrote:Last year I made some california Pinot Noir and at one stage it had a somewhat woody aroma to my great suprise given that it never saw oak at all. It made me realize that maybe Im not as sure as I thought I was about all the facets Pinot Noir can have on its own. Char and cola/maple/vanila elements are certainly oak derived but now when I notice "wood" I just note that it smells/taste like wood and dont automatically assume its oak.
I think this is a very good approach. It is very easy to describe what something tastes like, but trying to make assumptions about how a wine was made and what the winemaking has done to the wine based on what it tastes like is a pretty reliable way to end up with egg on one's face.

User avatar
paul hanna
Posts: 4910
Joined: April 28th, 2010, 10:14 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#20 Post by paul hanna » September 17th, 2012, 8:27 pm

Jayer made pretty good '82's....

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#21 Post by Berry Crawford » September 17th, 2012, 8:33 pm

Keith Levenberg wrote:I think this is a very good approach. It is very easy to describe what something tastes like, but trying to make assumptions about how a wine was made and what the winemaking has done to the wine based on what it tastes like is a pretty reliable way to end up with egg on one's face.
Its a good point. I probably shoudnt even assume maple/cola is oak.

One thing I see people do alot is be a bit too quick pronounce reduction as brett. Ive certainly been guilty of that.

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#22 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 6:14 am

Keith Levenberg wrote:
Berry Crawford wrote:Last year I made some california Pinot Noir and at one stage it had a somewhat woody aroma to my great suprise given that it never saw oak at all. It made me realize that maybe Im not as sure as I thought I was about all the facets Pinot Noir can have on its own. Char and cola/maple/vanila elements are certainly oak derived but now when I notice "wood" I just note that it smells/taste like wood and dont automatically assume its oak.
I think this is a very good approach. It is very easy to describe what something tastes like, but trying to make assumptions about how a wine was made and what the winemaking has done to the wine based on what it tastes like is a pretty reliable way to end up with egg on one's face.

Perhaps. But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
Alex

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#23 Post by Berry Crawford » September 18th, 2012, 6:18 am

Alex Gillette wrote:Perhaps. But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
But that may not be what you are noticing. That is Keiths point.

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#24 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 6:43 am

Berry Crawford wrote:
Alex Gillette wrote:Perhaps. But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
But that may not be what you are noticing. That is Keiths point.
I think Keith's point is that deducing winemaking technique by tasting is foolish. I'm not sure Keith is positing that it is foolish to point out individual known elements of winemaking in tasting. I'm sure Keith will respond.
A
Alex

User avatar
Keith Levenberg
Posts: 5567
Joined: June 6th, 2009, 3:11 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#25 Post by Keith Levenberg » September 18th, 2012, 7:13 am

Alex Gillette wrote:
Berry Crawford wrote:
Alex Gillette wrote:Perhaps. But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
But that may not be what you are noticing. That is Keiths point.
I think Keith's point is that deducing winemaking technique by tasting is foolish. I'm not sure Keith is positing that it is foolish to point out individual known elements of winemaking in tasting. I'm sure Keith will respond.
A
Well, I am not making any point whatsoever about the 1982 Ponsot, which I've never had. But I would still say it is wise to tread carefully in doing the second thing you mention. People can and do detect "oak" in wines that never touched anything besides stainless steel and glass, so just knowing that a wine has been in oak is not confirmation that what you think is oak is actually oak. You can never be wrong when you say that a wine tastes like x, y, or z, but when you say that x, y, and z is there because of a, b, and c you're making assumptions - some of which can be safer than others, to be sure, but those assumptions get refuted so often that it is not a bad policy to shy away from them and stick to what we can know for sure. Not saying I always follow that rule myself. But it's a good rule.

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#26 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 7:24 am

Keith Levenberg wrote: Well, I am not making any point whatsoever about the 1982 Ponsot, which I've never had. But I would still say it is wise to tread carefully in doing the second thing you mention. People can and do detect "oak" in wines that never touched anything besides stainless steel and glass, so just knowing that a wine has been in oak is not confirmation that what you think is oak is actually oak. You can never be wrong when you say that a wine tastes like x, y, or z, but when you say that x, y, and z is there because of a, b, and c you're making assumptions - some of which can be safer than others, to be sure, but those assumptions get refuted so often that it is not a bad policy to shy away from them and stick to what we can know for sure. Not saying I always follow that rule myself. But it's a good rule.
That all strikes me as fair. I tend not to have too many rules (don't comment on a wine you haven't tried is probably my only true rule). One of the things I think is particularly interesting about burgundy is trying to understand how different winemaking techniques affect terroir. So for me, knowing that a particular producer uses stems, or new oak, or employs any other winemaking technique, makes me want to try to get a sense of how that technique affects what is in the glass. That requires an assumption ("I know the producer is using stems; I taste something that I believe is the affect of those stems rather than something else") and therefore I can be incorrect. But being wrong about a wine is, in my opinion, pretty low cost.
A
Alex

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#27 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 8:14 am

Alex Gillette wrote:But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
Alex -- I'm assuming that by oak you mean new oak. Laurent has been telling me for years that he uses no new oak. I never asked him what the regime was in 1982 (when his father was still making the wines), so I don't know what it was then. Can you enlighten me and point me to your sources for how (1) how much oak was used in 1982 and (2) why you think he has been lying to me and others about how much he currently uses?
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#28 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 8:18 am

Claude Kolm wrote:
Alex Gillette wrote:But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
Alex -- I'm assuming that by oak you mean new oak. Laurent has been telling me for years that he uses no new oak. I never asked him what the regime was in 1982 (when his father was still making the wines), so I don't know what it was then. Can you enlighten me and point me to your sources for how (1) how much oak was used in 1982 and (2) why you think he has been lying to me and others about how much he currently uses?
I don't mean new oak. And I take (mild) offense to the way you've worded your second point. You should modify what you wrote.
Thanks
A
Alex

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#29 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 8:23 am

Alex Gillette wrote:
Claude Kolm wrote:
Alex Gillette wrote:But here, there is no assumption being made. It is factually true that Ponsot uses (and in 1982 used) oak.
A
Alex -- I'm assuming that by oak you mean new oak. Laurent has been telling me for years that he uses no new oak. I never asked him what the regime was in 1982 (when his father was still making the wines), so I don't know what it was then. Can you enlighten me and point me to your sources for how (1) how much oak was used in 1982 and (2) why you think he has been lying to me and others about how much he currently uses?
I don't mean new oak. And I take (mild) offense to the way you've worded your second point. You should modify what you wrote.
Thanks
A
If you didn't mean new oak, clearly you have not accused Ponsot of lying. But then what is the point of making the comment that he uses oak? Virtually everyone in the Côte d'Or does (and I use the word "virtually" to hedge for the possibility that there may be a few people who produces in minute quantities who don't, but I can't think of a one).
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#30 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 8:25 am

A few interesting points of reference (this is based only on a quick google search). Coates on the '06 Ponsot CdlR: "There is an illusion of oak here which is very curious." Tanzer on the '06 Ponsot Chambertin: "Sweet cherry, mocha and nutty oak on the nose". Two experienced, professional tasters both of whom are familiar with the oak (or non-oak) regime at Ponsot reporting what they've tasted.

A
Alex

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#31 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 8:27 am

Claude Kolm wrote: If you didn't mean new oak, clearly you have not accused Ponsot of lying. But then what is the point of making the comment that he uses oak? Virtually everyone in the Côte d'Or does (and I use the word "virtually" to hedge for the possibility that there may be a few people who produces in minute quantities who don't, but I can't think of a one).
Originally, I posted my impressions on the wine. My impression was that the wine was oakey. You noted that no new oak is used at Ponsot. My only point is that a wine can be oakey despite the fact that it sees no new oak.
A
Alex

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#32 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 8:27 am

Alex Gillette wrote:A few interesting points of reference (this is based only on a quick google search). Coates on the '06 Ponsot CdlR: "There is an illusion of oak here which is very curious." Tanzer on the '06 Ponsot Chambertin: "Sweet cherry, mocha and nutty oak on the nose". Two experienced, professional tasters both of whom are familiar with the oak (or non-oak) regime at Ponsot reporting what they've tasted.

A
Steve has his issues with Ponsot; I don't believe he has been allowed to visit (or perhaps has not sought to do so) for many years. Clive phrases it as "illusion."
Last edited by Claude Kolm on September 18th, 2012, 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#33 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 8:29 am

Alex Gillette wrote:
Claude Kolm wrote: If you didn't mean new oak, clearly you have not accused Ponsot of lying. But then what is the point of making the comment that he uses oak? Virtually everyone in the Côte d'Or does (and I use the word "virtually" to hedge for the possibility that there may be a few people who produces in minute quantities who don't, but I can't think of a one).
Originally, I posted my impressions on the wine. My impression was that the wine was oakey. You noted that no new oak is used at Ponsot. My only point is that a wine can be oakey despite the fact that it sees no new oak.
A
"Tastes like oak" is different from "oaky" the way that I read it, and based on the discussion above, others, too.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#34 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 8:37 am

Claude Kolm wrote: Steve has his issues with Ponsot; I don't believe he has been allowed to visit for many years. Clive phrases it as "illusion."
I'm not going to address the first part of your comments other than to say that I think Tanzer can give his honest opinion of what is in the bottle regardless of whether he has "issues" with the winemaker (I have no idea what "issues" means in this context, by the way). As for Clive's comment, I take it to be instructive here as he is using "illusion" precisely because it is curious to have noticable oak at a Domaine that uses no new oak.

Wine spectator on the '07 chappelle: "Seems marked by oak, yet with substance underneath."

Just to be clear,Claude: are you taking the position that if a wine sees no new oak, it is impossible for that wine to come off as oakey?
A
Last edited by A.Gillette on September 18th, 2012, 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Alex

A.Gillette
Posts: 1308
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 5:00 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#35 Post by A.Gillette » September 18th, 2012, 8:40 am

Claude Kolm wrote:"Tastes like oak" is different from "oaky" the way that I read it, and based on the discussion above, others, too.
You've lost me. Where are the words "Tastes like oak" that you are quoting?
A
Alex

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#36 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 8:47 am

Alex Gillette wrote:
Claude Kolm wrote: Steve has his issues with Ponsot; I don't believe he has been allowed to visit for many years. Clive phrases it as "illusion."
I'm not going to address the first part of your comments other than to say that I think Tanzer can give his honest opinion of what is in the bottle regardless of whether he has "issues" with the winemaker (I have no idea what "issues" means in this context, by the way). As for Clive's comment, I take it to be instructive here as he is using "illusion" precisely because it is curious to have noticable oak at a Domaine that uses no new oak.

Wine spectator on the '07 chappelle: "Seems marked by oak, yet with substance underneath."

Just to be clear,Clade: are you taking the position that if a wine sees no new oak, it is impossible for that wine to come off as oakey?
A
Alex -- All I am doing is making the same point as Keith above:
But I would still say it is wise to tread carefully in doing the second thing you mention. People can and do detect "oak" in wines that never touched anything besides stainless steel and glass, so just knowing that a wine has been in oak is not confirmation that what you think is oak is actually oak. You can never be wrong when you say that a wine tastes like x, y, or z, but when you say that x, y, and z is there because of a, b, and c you're making assumptions - some of which can be safer than others, to be sure, but those assumptions get refuted so often that it is not a bad policy to shy away from them and stick to what we can know for sure.
There is a difference (at least to me and to others) between calling a wine "oaky" -- which implies the use of new oak -- and saying that it tastes of elements that are ordinarily associated with new oak, which does not conclusively imply that new oak was used. As for oak that is not new,I don't believe anyone ever comments on a wine tasting of used oak, except in a negative way to indicate that the casks (presumably) were not properly cleaned.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#37 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 8:50 am

Alex Gillette wrote:
Claude Kolm wrote:"Tastes like oak" is different from "oaky" the way that I read it, and based on the discussion above, others, too.
You've lost me. Where are the words "Tastes like oak" that you are quoting?
A
The words "tastes like oak" are put in quotation marks not to indicate that I am quoting them from somewhere but rather to indicate that they collectively play the role of the subject in the sentence. The reason I refer to "tastes like oak" and contrast it with "oaky" goes back to Keith's comment.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow
Posts: 6418
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#38 Post by Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow » September 18th, 2012, 10:00 am

Claude Kolm wrote: I didn't start visiting until about 1995.

The oldest source I can find that reports on the amount of new oak is Remington Norman in 1993. He says 20% new oak. AFAIK, stems (which sometimes can import aspects confused with new oak) have not been used since way, way back. Norman singles out the 1982s (and 1986s) as being particularly weak at Ponsot.
I visited Ponsot in summer 1988 and experienced the '86s. They were, I thought, horrible, though I actually liked the vintage at many places, preferring it almost always to 1987. I never went back to Ponsot.

When I think of 1982, in general, I think of dilution and light bodied wines. I know I tasted some Ponsot '82 which fit that mold, too.

Frankly, I don't remember anyone who made really terrific wines in '82, though particularly then the trophier wines were likely to be the best. The methods were still those of the pre-boomer generation of winemakers, like Laurent's father. Supposedly he was the "mayor" of MSD. I used to wonder how he "campaigned" as his charm wasn't evident.

Peter Chiu
Posts: 3871
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 1:39 pm

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#39 Post by Peter Chiu » September 18th, 2012, 10:33 am

Rex Northen wrote:I had an 82 DRC Richebourg about 5 years ago that was just stunning. Fully mature with aromatics that filled the room. I got it and a bottle of RC from a mixed case that was split among friends and had been held by a retailer in temperature controlled storage since release. All the bottles have been stellar.
Rex.....I agree with re DRC 82.

RC 82 is still one of my all time fav red Burgundy. Everyone went back just to smell the empty bottle the whole evening.

User avatar
billnanson
Posts: 1474
Joined: October 22nd, 2010, 11:08 am
Location: Bern and Beaune

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#40 Post by billnanson » September 18th, 2012, 11:42 am

Alex Gillette wrote:Just to be clear,Claude: are you taking the position that if a wine sees no new oak, it is impossible for that wine to come off as oakey?
A
I often find that 3-5 year-old Fourrier gives an aromatic impression of plenty of new oak - oak on the palate is something different for me (obvious vanilla or cocunt apart) and largely a textural thing - I've gradually come to think of it as a type of reduction as it eventually lifts in the glass.

Back to '82: Recent experience (okay 2 years ago!) was a simply amazing Engel Brûlées - really a wine to remember...
Burgundy Report - online since 2002...

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#41 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 12:12 pm

billnanson wrote:Back to '82: Recent experience (okay 2 years ago!)
That's "okay" and not "oaky," right, Bill? neener newhere [smileyvault-ban.gif] deadhorse [whistle.gif] blahblah [head-bang.gif] [oops.gif] [berserker.gif] [headbang.gif] [gen_fro.gif]
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

Tom Blach
Posts: 2534
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 10:09 am

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#42 Post by Tom Blach » September 18th, 2012, 12:22 pm

Ponsot's 86 Griotte Chambertin and particularly Clos De La Roche came around wonderfully in the end, the latter a glimpse of heaven some five years ago.

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#43 Post by Claude Kolm » September 18th, 2012, 12:48 pm

Tom Blach wrote:Ponsot's 86 Griotte Chambertin and particularly Clos De La Roche came around wonderfully in the end, the latter a glimpse of heaven some five years ago.

Tom -- You might enjoy this little essay by Kermit Lynch (http://kermitlynch.com/newsletters/0502 ... ry2005.pdf - scroll down to "Losing Parker and Ponsot"), especially the last paragraph.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

Tom Blach
Posts: 2534
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 10:09 am

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#44 Post by Tom Blach » September 18th, 2012, 3:46 pm

I remember that well, Claude, and the article in his book. It was a great, magical, wine in 2006, though-I'm absolutely certain you'd have been bowled over by it, which just shows that you never can tell.

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#45 Post by Claude Kolm » November 1st, 2012, 1:47 am

On the subtopic of Ponsot and no new oak, I asked Laurent Ponsot yesterday about the claim by Remington Norman in the first edition of his book that Ponsot used 20% new oak (see post no. 18 in this thread) and Laurent said that Norman had been mistaken. He said that the estate always tried to avoid the use of new oak, although until the use of new oak became widespread in Burgundy, making used barrels widely available, the estate had from time to time had to purchase new barrels to replace some older ones or to provide for extra capacity as new vineyards were added. Accordingly, for example, Jean-Marie Ponsot purchased new barrels in 1963 and Laurent did in 1985. But even then, the barrels were washed and treated to eliminate any taste or aroma of new wood.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#46 Post by Berry Crawford » November 1st, 2012, 7:02 am

Claude Kolm wrote:until the use of new oak became widespread in Burgundy
When would you say this was? Early 90s?

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#47 Post by Claude Kolm » November 1st, 2012, 8:26 am

Berry Crawford wrote:
Claude Kolm wrote:until the use of new oak became widespread in Burgundy
When would you say this was? Early 90s?
End of the 1980s is when it began. Ponsot referred to it as the Parker effect* -- for those who weren't following Burgundy at the time, I think it is difficult to conceive of how influential Parker was in Burgundy for a brief period of time (and he continued to have significant influence, although more among a certain group of purchasers than producers, for quite some time after that). I and other friends recall noticing many wines with too much new oak at that time. Fortunately, some of the new oak mania has subsided, although many producers continue to use a very high percentage of new oak.

Laurent Ponsot posed an interesting question: why does anyone need any new oak now that there are techniques and technology to assure that used barrels will be adequately cleaned? Different producers would give different answers.

* The irony, of course, is that Parker was a huge fan of Ponsot's wines and always cited that fact to argue (with faulty logic) that it proved that he was not an oak hound.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#48 Post by Berry Crawford » November 1st, 2012, 8:42 am

Thank you Claude. I suspected Parker was at work. I bet his influence led to alot of cold soaking too.

Claude Kolm
Posts: 2081
Joined: July 12th, 2009, 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco and Paris

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#49 Post by Claude Kolm » November 1st, 2012, 9:01 am

Cold soaking is a more complex subject, Berry. Henri Jayer had a big influence on a whole generation or more of producers, and not just on cold soaking. Some that are now tiptoeing into using some stems say that it was Jayer who had convinced them not to use any stems.
the-fine-wine-review.blogspot.com

User avatar
Berry Crawford
Posts: 10024
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 8:16 pm
Location: Near the Sierra Foothills

Re: 1982 burg vintage?

#50 Post by Berry Crawford » November 1st, 2012, 9:03 am

Claude Kolm wrote:Cold soaking is a more complex subject, Berry. Henri Jayer had a big influence on a whole generation or more of producers, and not just on cold soaking. Some that are now tiptoeing into using some stems say that it was Jayer who had convinced them not to use any stems.
Who do you think was more influential: accad or Jayer?

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”