Any good? What is the vintage character like?
Thanks for reading.
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.
I have over a case of Ponnelle Charmes coming…so I hope it’s good!
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! 
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”).
Pretty darn good Chablis at the top level, as a mixed case of Dauvissat Clos & Preuses taught me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Ponsot uses NO new oak.
But did they in 1982?
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.
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.
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.
Jayer made pretty good '82’s…