Critical of the Critics - 2004 & 2011 Red Burgundy

Message

#101 Post by **k s h i n** » June 11th, 2018, 10:54 am

L e o F r o k i c wrote:5 years after, how do you feel about 2011 red burgundies. I absolutely hate them, pyrazines are so pronounce that I have problem finishing the glass. At release we had 20+ bottles, not a single was good and since then I had around 30 from various producers and appellations. They do have nice fruit but I can't get past Pyrazines. Tasted them when they were in the barrel and could clearly taste dreaded Pyrazines. Recently I also had some 2004 reds and majority are undrinkable to me.

I was called all kinds of name for calling the 11s as I saw them. It is important to remember that the individual sensitivity varies significantly.

#102 Post by **k s h i n** » June 11th, 2018, 10:56 am

A Songeur wrote:Yes, I don't think the problem is as bad as 2004...but there is a problem for me as well. Whi is a pity because the good ones drink well at the moment.
Apparently the Lady Birds love red wines as the white burgundies are not affected...

I agree that it is much better than the 04. I also find the taint in whites, both the 04 and the 11, but less severe and not too bothersome.

#103 Post by **L e o F r o k i c** » June 11th, 2018, 11:14 am

k s h i n wrote:
A Songeur wrote:Yes, I don't think the problem is as bad as 2004...but there is a problem for me as well. Whi is a pity because the good ones drink well at the moment.
Apparently the Lady Birds love red wines as the white burgundies are not affected...
I agree that it is much better than the 04. I also find the taint in whites, both the 04 and the 11, but less severe and not too bothersome.

Never been bothered by whites and went thru a lot of 2011s, wife drinks a glass everyday with dinner.

#104 Post by **Mich@el Ch@ng** » June 11th, 2018, 11:25 am

I’ve had a few 11s and enjoyed them a lot; Volnay, Morey, Vosne. Perhaps I’m less sensitive to pyrazines.

#105 Post by **Keith A k e r s** » June 11th, 2018, 3:45 pm

L e o F r o k i c wrote:5 years after, how do you feel about 2011 red burgundies. I absolutely hate them, pyrazines are so pronounce that I have problem finishing the glass. At release we had 20+ bottles, not a single was good and since then I had around 30 from various producers and appellations. They do have nice fruit but I can't get past Pyrazines. Tasted them when they were in the barrel and could clearly taste dreaded Pyrazines. Recently I also had some 2004 reds and majority are undrinkable to me.

I have basically written off 2011 for reds. While I’m sure there are wines that are pretty with understated red fruits, I don’t have enough $$ to attempt to try to find good 11s. Too many vintages I enjoy that are available right now to waste any money on 11s for me.

#106 Post by **L e o F r o k i c** » June 11th, 2018, 3:53 pm

k s h i n wrote:
L e o F r o k i c wrote:5 years after, how do you feel about 2011 red burgundies. I absolutely hate them, pyrazines are so pronounce that I have problem finishing the glass. At release we had 20+ bottles, not a single was good and since then I had around 30 from various producers and appellations. They do have nice fruit but I can't get past Pyrazines. Tasted them when they were in the barrel and could clearly taste dreaded Pyrazines. Recently I also had some 2004 reds and majority are undrinkable to me.
I was called all kinds of name for calling the 11s as I saw them. It is important to remember that the individual sensitivity varies significantly.

It's funny how people get all kinds of reactions, I been asking this question all over and some people agree and some violently disagree. It's true that I didn't have every great wine that was made in burgundy in 2011 but I had a lot, from barrel to bottle and not a single bottle was taint free, they do vary from bottle to bottle so it was safe for me to assume, being too sensitive Pyrazines that this is not for me.

#107 Post by **Shannon Perdue** » June 11th, 2018, 4:35 pm

It's funny how people get all kinds of reactions, I been asking this question all over and some people agree and some violently disagree. It's true that I didn't have every great wine that was made in burgundy in 2011 but I had a lot, from barrel to bottle and not a single bottle was taint free, they do vary from bottle to bottle so it was safe for me to assume, being too sensitive Pyrazines that this is not for me.

This. Also being sensitive to Pyrazines even the idea of the 2011s being green made me skip the vintage almost entirely. It is what it is...everyone less sensitive is welcome to them. There are certainly a lot of 2011s on the market to choose from.

#108 Post by **Howard Cooper** » June 11th, 2018, 4:50 pm

When the 2011s first came out, they were the same price or even more expensive than the 2010s when they first came out so, except where I wanted to keep allocations, it was a no brained to skip the vintage.

#109 Post by **Scott Brunson** » June 11th, 2018, 5:22 pm

I still hate both vintages, although I have enjoyed quite a few 04 whites.

bretrooks · #110 Post by **bretrooks** » June 11th, 2018, 5:39 pm

One limited data point...
Over time, I have picked up about a case of mixed 2011 Felettig village-level burgs and have found no concerning greenness in any of the four bottles I've opened (1x Nuits St. Georges / 1x Chambolle-Musigny / 2x Vosne-Romanée, one of which was slightly marred by sulfur).

For the record: my burg experience is pretty limited; I haven't had any 2004's at all; I'd guess that I'm just moderately sensitive to pyrazine-type bitterness...for example, I like cab franc as long as I avoid cooler Loire vintages, and I'm not a fan of grassy/bell peppery sauvignon blancs but am ok with others.

#111 Post by **EricG** » June 11th, 2018, 6:12 pm

2011 was a birth year for my daughter so I bought more than I would have otherwise. My early experiences were mostly good. More mixed lately. 2011 Bertheau Charmes went down the drain Saturday night. His wines have been the most tainted in my experience. A 2011 Sauzet Batard was flawed recently as well.

Karl K · #112 Post by **Karl K** » June 11th, 2018, 6:19 pm

I have had some 2011 1er C Gevrey from Henri Magnien which is in the lean, tart red fruit of the spectrum without being GM.

Will try another one soon and report

#113 Post by **Kevin Harvey** » June 11th, 2018, 7:14 pm

I passed on 2011. It was 2004 redux for me. FWIW, it is noticeable in many current non-vintage Champagnes (confirmed with producers). All of our sensitivities vary on this, but for me it is extremely offensive.

Paul H Galli · #114 Post by **Paul H Galli** » June 11th, 2018, 9:17 pm

Kevin Harvey wrote:I passed on 2011. It was 2004 redux for me. FWIW, it is noticeable in many current non-vintage Champagnes (confirmed with producers). All of our sensitivities vary on this, but for me it is extremely offensive.

KH,
Were these off Champagnes Pinot Noir Based?

TTT

#115 Post by **Craig G** » June 11th, 2018, 9:41 pm

This is actually quite weird. I haven’t had a whole lot of 2004s but I smelled the taint in every one and picked them out of verticals when they were there.

I haven’t had a single 2011 that struck me as similar. There are absolutely underripe 2011s, and in general they are pretty light (some could deservedly say weak), but I get nothing like 2004.

#116 Post by **Fred C** » June 11th, 2018, 10:16 pm

EricG wrote:2011 Bertheau Charmes went down the drain Saturday night. His wines have been the most tainted in my experience

A big +1. I tasted the entire lineup except Bonnes Mares and it's so bad I wonder if it was rot? The Amoureuses is almost tolerable but Bertheau 2011 made me listen to the warnings that there may be something wrong with 2011 red burgundy. The whites have been good for the most part with an occasional odd bitterness which I've also tasted in 2004 Salon and Krug.

billnanson · #117 Post by **billnanson** » June 12th, 2018, 4:25 am

So, where are all the people on page one of this thread that said 2011 is not a pyrazine vintage? Let's just take out the 'emotiove' ladybug tag and talk about the wines!

2011 remains a nice, easy, tasty, earlier drinking vintage, provided you (I) can choose which wines to drink. It's not impacted to the same extent as 2004 but for the sensitive - and seemingly those that shout loudest are the INsensitive - many wines are not pleasant...

I'll keep calling them as I see them, and seemingly, most of the younger generation of winemakers that I visit (and respect!) now simply say 'it's another coccinelle vintage...'

#118 Post by **Kevin Harvey** » June 12th, 2018, 6:20 am

Paul H Galli wrote:
Kevin Harvey wrote:I passed on 2011. It was 2004 redux for me. FWIW, it is noticeable in many current non-vintage Champagnes (confirmed with producers). All of our sensitivities vary on this, but for me it is extremely offensive.
KH,
Were these off Champagnes Pinot Noir Based?

TTT

I have tasted in Champagnes made from both grapes as well as Chardonnay-only Blanc de Blancs.

#119 Post by **D@vid Bu3ker** » June 12th, 2018, 6:26 am

I agree with Kevin that 2011 based Champagnes show some green taint. It’s a rare one that I enjoy.

#120 Post by **Jay Miller** » June 12th, 2018, 6:31 am

I've tasted very few (2010 was theoretically the last vintage I bought to lay down) but haven't had many that I've enjoyed. Whether it's ladybugs or something else 2011 is definitely the weakest vintage since 2004.

Nathan V. · #121 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 7:19 am

Again, 2004 and 2011 had completely different issues. As far as differing "sensitivities", the physical perception boundaries, what people mean when they say sensitivity, are actually quite narrow.

According to CT (which is incomplete because we eat out at restaurants) I've had 17 bottles of 2011 red Burgundy from Barthod, Louis Boillot and Mugneret-Gibourg. The wines can be on the slender side, but the Mugneret in particular have been lovely. To say that there is a "taint" to a vintage is inaccurate. You can not think the vintage is for you and pass on it, that's fine. I have fewer bottles of 2011 than I do from any vintage between 2008 and 2015, but it isn't a useless vintage.

I'm uninterested in individuals perceptions of "taint". If you are going to make that sort of claim, then you need some hard evidence to back it up otherwise, it is simply a preference. Pace kshin, there is no scoop on this vintage, it is a slender one where growers did the best that they could and to me it is vintages like this that separate out the truly conscientious and excellent. Having preferences is fine, it's what a lot of this whole hobby is all about.

Nathan V. · #122 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 7:21 am

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:I agree with Kevin that 2011 based Champagnes show some green taint. It’s a rare one that I enjoy.

Yeah, they can be a bummer. I feel for the small growers. I hope that folks don't have a bottle based on that vintage and then decide that growers stinks. A lot of it should have become spirits.

#123 Post by **k s h i n** » June 12th, 2018, 7:28 am

Nathan V. wrote:I have fewer bottles of 2011 than I do from any vintage between 2008 and 2015, but it isn't a useless vintage.

As Howard pointed out, the 11s were priced close to the 10. My recommendation was to back fill with the 07s and the 08s. Other than buying to keep the allocation, I am not sure if there was a good reason to buy the 11s.

Nathan V. · #124 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 7:36 am

k s h i n wrote:
Nathan V. wrote:I have fewer bottles of 2011 than I do from any vintage between 2008 and 2015, but it isn't a useless vintage.
As Howard pointed out, the 11s were priced close to the 10. My recommendation was to back fill with the 07s and the 08s. Other than buying to keep the allocation, I am not sure if there was a good reason to buy the 11s.

As a retailer, why don't you pass on a vintage of Mugneret (if you get an allocation) and see if you get offered it the next year. Consumers that buy on the spot market can do whatever they want. However, if I had a customer (and I'm not a retailer anymore) pass on an allocation they're off for the next vintage.

You failed to address my point about the vintage being "tainted". I think you should disavow that statement and just state that you think it is your least favorite since 2004, which is all that is relevant and all you should really say then we can put this to rest forever because you'd be in agreement with most people who follow Burgundy.

#125 Post by **k s h i n** » June 12th, 2018, 7:50 am

Nathan V. wrote:
k s h i n wrote:
Nathan V. wrote:I have fewer bottles of 2011 than I do from any vintage between 2008 and 2015, but it isn't a useless vintage.
As Howard pointed out, the 11s were priced close to the 10. My recommendation was to back fill with the 07s and the 08s. Other than buying to keep the allocation, I am not sure if there was a good reason to buy the 11s.
As a retailer, why don't you pass on a vintage of Mugneret (if you get an allocation) and see if you get offered it the next year. Consumers that buy on the spot market can do whatever they want. However, if I had a customer (and I'm not a retailer anymore) pass on an allocation they're off for the next vintage.

You failed to address my point about the vintage being "tainted". I think you should disavow that statement and just state that you think it is your least favorite since 2004, which is all that is relevant and all you should really say then we can put this to rest forever because you'd be in agreement with most people who follow Burgundy.

I gladly took all my allocation of the top producers. I have been saying that it is much better vintage than the 04 and some are quite enjoyable. Having said that, assuming the 11 was affected by LBT, it is all or none unless it is like hail, i.e. localized.

billnanson · #126 Post by **billnanson** » June 12th, 2018, 7:53 am

Nathan V. wrote: You failed to address my point about the vintage being "tainted". I think you should disavow that statement and just state that you think it is your least favorite since 2004, which is all that is relevant and all you should really say then we can put this to rest forever because you'd be in agreement with most people who follow Burgundy.

Well I wouldn't disavow that - it's correct.

Most (young) winemakers with a technical bent also support the reasons for the similarities between 2011 and 2004 - nothing to do with the vintage weather or hail in August for 2004. 2011 was generally a very clean vintage, it didn't need much triage, and "if there hadn't been so much rain shortly before the harvest, it could have been another 2009" - quote Jerôme Flous, last month. So for such massively different vintages, why do they smell the same (more than half the time) to those that are sensistive to pyrazines?

I went to blind tasting last year where 12 of 30 wines turned out to be from 2011 - I nailed directly 10 of them. My girlfriend who is more sensistive than I, got all 12. It's a very extreme example because not all wines have the problem - it's as low as 25% for people with vibrating tables - but it is what it is...

Nathan V. · #127 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 8:20 am

billnanson wrote:
Nathan V. wrote: You failed to address my point about the vintage being "tainted". I think you should disavow that statement and just state that you think it is your least favorite since 2004, which is all that is relevant and all you should really say then we can put this to rest forever because you'd be in agreement with most people who follow Burgundy.
Well I wouldn't disavow that - it's correct.

Most (young) winemakers with a technical bent also support the reasons for the similarities between 2011 and 2004 - nothing to do with the vintage weather or hail in August for 2004. 2011 was generally a very clean vintage, it didn't need much triage, and "if there hadn't been so much rain shortly before the harvest, it could have been another 2009" - quote Jerôme Flous, last month. So for such massively different vintages, why do they smell the same (more than half the time) to those that are sensistive to pyrazines?

I went to blind tasting last year where 12 of 30 wines turned out to be from 2011 - I nailed directly 10 of them. My girlfriend who is more sensistive than I, got all 12. It's a very extreme example because not all wines have the problem - it's as low as 25% for people with vibrating tables - but it is what it is...

What is the empirical evidence? While I'm sure you are a better taster than I am, I'm sure I could do OK single blind picking out 2011s from other vintages. All wines have pyrazines, it is the relative amount in the mix of hundreds (thousands?) of other organoleptic compounds. I dispute that there are people that are radically different in their physical make-up such that they have a dramatically different threshold for the detection of pyrazines. Are you seriously claiming that you and Kevin have some kind of different olfactory neural structure than the rest of us? Also, it's not like lady bugs aren't around in vintages other than 2004 and 2011.

It's fine to have a preference for wines from vintages where pyrazines have a different balance as part of the whole. I have a different set of preferences than you and Kevin as it relates to pyrazines as I avidly drink and collect red wines from the Loire where pyrazines have an important role in the overall composition of those wines.

#128 Post by **Alan Rath** » June 12th, 2018, 8:37 am

billnanson wrote:2011 was generally a very clean vintage, it didn't need much triage, and "if there hadn't been so much rain shortly before the harvest, it could have been another 2009" - quote Jerôme Flous, last month. So for such massively different vintages, why do they smell the same (more than half the time) to those that are sensistive to pyrazines?

I'll admit up front that I haven't had any 11s recently. But I didn't write "green" notes on the 11s tasted at Paulee that year. Maybe things have changed in bottle, and it's time to check out a few. But I'll make this observation and wonder if it is connected to your weather comment: I've strongly disliked most 11 whites, because of what I perceive as raw, underripe acids. That impending weather caused many growers to pick earlier than they would have, leading to the underripe character (I had at least a couple of prominent producers agree with me on this). In reds it came across to me as just thinner, leaner, less intense wines in general (though I remember some quite lovely bottles as well). Could more "green" notes be coming out in the reds after some years in bottle? And are these characteristics of reds and whites related?

#129 Post by **Craig G** » June 12th, 2018, 8:38 am

Nathan V. wrote:You failed to address my point about the vintage being "tainted". I think you should disavow that statement and just state that you think it is your least favorite since 2004, which is all that is relevant and all you should really say then we can put this to rest forever because you'd be in agreement with most people who follow Burgundy.

For Kevin, Bill, Leo and others, it seems like the vintage really is “tainted” as they find a similar, objectionable character in most of the wines. I’m still not clear if most people think this is the same character as 2004: There are different types of pyrazines coming from ladybugs and unripe grapes.

The big difference I see between 2004 and 2011 is that most people seem to find taint in 2004 in a surprisingly high percentage of wines. In 2011 I believe it’s a much smaller number of people who do that. So it seems to be either at a different level or a different type of “taint.”

Just from personal experience, my guess would be that 2011 is “tainted” by unripeness, and has a higher level of those pyrazines than most vintages. Then we have some people (like myself) who find the wines inside the normal spectrum, and some (who are very sensitive to these unripe grape pyrazines) find them more uniformly objectionable. To me, 2004 really seems outside the normal spectrum of wine. They don’t taste unripe in the normal sense, they taste like some foreign substance was added. But this is just me guessing to explain why the two vintages strike me completely differently. Bill’s post argues otherwise.

billnanson · #130 Post by **billnanson** » June 12th, 2018, 8:47 am

Nathan - that is exactly empirical evidence - I think you mean the scientific evidence

I'll leave the GC-MS work to these people:

You don't believe, so others have to disavow? And presumably these people should stop their work at the same time?

"All wines have pyrazines, it is the relative amount in the mix of hundreds (thousands?) of other organoleptic compounds." Actually, to my sensitive nose, this type of pyrazine is very rare, outside of the two vintages under discussion, I do get hits in red burgundy, but significantly less than one in a hundred samples - that's why it's so easy for me to spot - having an inbuilt dislike for something makes it very easy to find. Swap to gamay and I see it far more often - maybe 3-5% of the time, but normally on a very modest level where it is more an extra note of complexity than something that dominates...

Craig G - same taint, but yes, on a much lower level. I might find many 2011s 'irritating', but my reaction is modest compared to a lot of 2004s. It's like before somebody explained coked wines to you - you would drink it but not enjoy it - but once you recognise what it is, not only can you not enjoy it, you can't even make yourself drink it - you become sensitised. That's 90% of 2004 reds and a much more modest proportion of 2011s for me...

Nathan V. · #131 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 8:51 am

Craig G wrote:
Nathan V. wrote:You failed to address my point about the vintage being "tainted". I think you should disavow that statement and just state that you think it is your least favorite since 2004, which is all that is relevant and all you should really say then we can put this to rest forever because you'd be in agreement with most people who follow Burgundy.
For Kevin, Bill, Leo and others, it seems like the vintage really is “tainted” as they find a similar, objectionable character in most of the wines. I’m still not clear if most people think this is the same character as 2004: There are different types of pyrazines coming from ladybugs and unripe grapes.

The big difference I see between 2004 and 2011 is that most people seem to find taint in 2004 in a surprisingly high percentage of wines. In 2011 I believe it’s a much smaller number of people who do that. So it seems to be either at a different level or a different type of “taint.”

Just from personal experience, my guess would be that 2011 is “tainted” by unripeness, and has a higher level of those pyrazines than most vintages. Then we have some people (like myself) who find the wines inside the normal spectrum, and some (who are very sensitive to these unripe grape pyrazines) find them more uniformly objectionable. To me, 2004 really seems outside the normal spectrum of wine. They don’t taste unripe in the normal sense, they taste like some foreign substance was added. But this is just me guessing to explain why the two vintages strike me completely differently. Bill’s post argues otherwise.

I would argue that people are within a very narrow bandwidth in they're detection threshold for pyrazines, it is just that people have different preferences and attention towards them.

It's a good point about 2004 being a real outlier. It is the worst vintage since I began tasting red Burgundy with the 1991 vintage, even worse than 1994, which was really bad. I hope there isn't another 2004 in our lifetime.

#132 Post by **Kevin Harvey** » June 12th, 2018, 9:05 am

Bill,
It sounds like my sensitivity is similar to yours. I cannot finish a glass that shows this awful character (chemical not “green” to me). Most recently I couldn’t drink an otherwis nice grower champagne over the weekend.
FWIW sensitivity to this compound is not related to tasting acuity. Some of the best tasters I know are blind to it.

Nathan V. · #133 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 9:08 am

billnanson wrote:Nathan - that is exactly empirical evidence - I think you mean the scientific evidence

Ha! Fair point, that's exactly what I mean.

I'll leave the GC-MS work to these people:

I'll take a look at this, thanks.

You don't believe, so others have to disavow? And presumably these people should stop their work at the same time?

I think the burden of proof when you call something "tainted" is on you, not me. You are making a claim about a fact of the matter, but the support is anecdotal. I don't doubt that the wines can be green to you and that you don't like that or that you can accurately identify it, I just think the claim of "taint" doesn't hold up to scrutiny but I am prepared to be wrong if compelled by evidence.

And there are plenty of lady bugs in other vintages, right?

"All wines have pyrazines, it is the relative amount in the mix of hundreds (thousands?) of other organoleptic compounds." Actually, to my sensitive nose, this type of pyrazine is very rare, outside of the two vintages under discussion, I do get hits in red burgundy, but significantly less than one in a hundred samples - that's why it's so easy for me to spot - having an inbuilt dislike for something makes it very easy to find. Swap to gamay and I see it far more often - maybe 3-5% of the time, but normally on a very modest level where it is more an extra note of complexity than something that dominates...

I think it is an attention thing (your prefrontal cortex is working hard) rather than a sensitivity thing (your olfactory epithelium is different from other people). My consumption of 2011s is limited to growers I buy every year and the wines haven't been problematic for my preferences. I've started to drink through them and it's nice to have them as they are approachable now.

Nathan V. · #134 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 9:14 am

Kevin Harvey wrote:Bill,
It sounds like my sensitivity is similar to yours. I cannot finish a glass that shows this awful character (chemical not “green” to me). Most recently I couldn’t drink an otherwis nice grower champagne over the weekend.
FWIW sensitivity to this compound is not related to tasting acuity. Some of the best tasters I know are blind to it.

Tasting acuity is a attention thing, not a perception thing as you point out.

Now this is going back a long time, but in graduate school working with a pyrazine type substance, the perception of what it was changed with dilution (this was the same for other substances too) and there was some variability among people in what it was but there was no statistical difference between the two groups of people we looked at. This work was part of my masters thesis and, alas, was never published in a peer-reviewed journal.

#135 Post by **k s h i n** » June 12th, 2018, 9:32 am

Kevin Harvey wrote:this awful character (chemical not “green” to me).

I agree and this is the main issue. The dominating expression in the 04 taint is not pyrazine/herbaceous yet a lot of folks are looking for green. I actually like Loire Cab Franc and Sauvignon Blanc.

#136 Post by **Craig G** » June 12th, 2018, 9:39 am

k s h i n wrote:
Kevin Harvey wrote:this awful character (chemical not “green” to me).
I agree and this is the main issue. The dominating expression in the 04 taint is not pyrazine/herbaceous yet a lot of folks are looking for green. I actually like Loire Cab Franc and Sauvignon Blanc.

If it’s ladybug, I believe it is a pyrazine but not the same type as underripe grapes. The characteristic of the ladybug pyrazine has elsewhere been described as peas/rancid peanut butter, though I’m not sure that’s how I would describe what I smell in 2004s.

#137 Post by **k s h i n** » June 12th, 2018, 9:44 am

Craig G wrote:
k s h i n wrote:
Kevin Harvey wrote:this awful character (chemical not “green” to me).
I agree and this is the main issue. The dominating expression in the 04 taint is not pyrazine/herbaceous yet a lot of folks are looking for green. I actually like Loire Cab Franc and Sauvignon Blanc.
If it’s ladybug, I believe it is a pyrazine but not the same type as underripe grapes. The characteristic of the ladybug pyrazine has elsewhere been described as peas/rancid peanut butter, though I’m not sure that’s how I would describe what I smell in 2004s.

Craig,
I have posted this more than a dozen times but FWIW... Dry and crush a dead lady bug, add 1/2 to 1/4 to a neutral cheap clean Pinot. That is what LBT smell like.

#138 Post by **Jayson Cohen** » June 12th, 2018, 12:08 pm

I’ve been observing this back-and-forth battle for years now. No one is changing anyone’s mind.

In any case there was an infestation of Asian lady beetles in Ann Arbor in 2004. I killed hundreds of them in my home. The smell of a single crushed bug is powerful and distinct. I would characterize the smell as similar to what Craig describes, like an intense corrugated cardboard-peanut shell combination. I haven’t had enough 2004 or 2011 Burgindies to see if this is what affected them, but I would know that smell anywhere. Maybe I’ll pull a bottle of (poster child) 2004 Chevillon to see what’s going on there. I’ll serve it to Jay.

YacobovE · #139 Post by **YacobovE** » June 12th, 2018, 1:27 pm

k s h i n wrote: I have posted this more than a dozen times but FWIW... Dry and crush a dead lady bug, add 1/2 to 1/4 to a neutral cheap clean Pinot. That is what LBT smell like.

Please stop trying to convince everyone to participate in your sick experiments of murdering ladybugs!! SAVE THE LADYBUGS, PEOPLE!!

#140 Post by **k s h i n** » June 12th, 2018, 1:49 pm

YacobovE wrote:
k s h i n wrote: I have posted this more than a dozen times but FWIW... Dry and crush a dead lady bug, add 1/2 to 1/4 to a neutral cheap clean Pinot. That is what LBT smell like.
Please stop trying to convince everyone to participate in your sick experiments of murdering ladybugs!! SAVE THE LADYBUGS, PEOPLE!!

The original post said find a dead ladybug.

The expression is so clear and if you don't detect, you are one of the blessed ones.

#141 Post by **Howard Cooper** » June 12th, 2018, 4:50 pm

I certainly have tasted the taint in 2004s. It is awful and most (but not all) of the 2004 reds are awful. I have no idea whether it is caused by ladybugs. Fourrier said in an interview with Levi Dalton on I'll Drink to That that he did not think ladybugs is the cause. I believe that he thought the cause had to do with the unusual weather in 2003 and things producers did in the aftermath of that. Again, I have no idea of the cause in 2004. I just know that the wines are tainted.

#142 Post by **Alan Rath** » June 12th, 2018, 5:04 pm

Howard Cooper wrote: Fourrier said in an interview with Levi Dalton on I'll Drink to That that he did not think ladybugs is the cause.

There is just no excuse whatsoever for them not to know this. Too easy to compare pyrazines in ladybugs with what's in the wine and know for sure.

Karl K · #143 Post by **Karl K** » June 12th, 2018, 5:47 pm

Bill, can you explain why you taste it more in Gamay? Just easier to detect in that grape, or more prevalent with it for some reason?

Nathan V. · #144 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 7:57 pm

Alan Rath wrote:
Howard Cooper wrote: Fourrier said in an interview with Levi Dalton on I'll Drink to That that he did not think ladybugs is the cause.
There is just no excuse whatsoever for them not to know this. Too easy to compare pyrazines in ladybugs with what's in the wine and know for sure.

It's because the ladybug thing is a red herring. I don't know any vignerons (not that I'm best friends with any in Burgundy) that think 2004 was ladybugs. It was a very weird vintage and the wines are the consequence. The people that think the cause is ladybugs are word people, not logic/science people. I don't know how to structure my arguments to make it any more clear. This is a matter of fact and kshin finding random ladybugs and crushing them and whatever billnanason saw notwithstanding there are facts that pertain and unless and until someone produces them the word people are just crafting a narrative. Honestly, it should be embarrassing (unless, of course, there is actual evidence).

Nathan V. · #145 Post by **Nathan V.** » June 12th, 2018, 8:00 pm

Jayson Cohen wrote:I’ve been observing this back-and-forth battle for years now. No one is changing anyone’s mind.

In any case there was an infestation of Asian lady beetles in Ann Arbor in 2004. I killed hundreds of them in my home. The smell of a single crushed bug is powerful and distinct. I would characterize the smell as similar to what Craig describes, like an intense corrugated cardboard-peanut shell combination. I haven’t had enough 2004 or 2011 Burgindies to see if this is what affected them, but I would know that smell anywhere. Maybe I’ll pull a bottle of (poster child) 2004 Chevillon to see what’s going on there. I’ll serve it to Jay.

You used to be a scientist, so you should know that if you are positing theory you need a hypothesis that can be tested and then you need to test it and produce data. It is incumbent on that party to show the results. Spending too much time around word people has made you believe this is all narrative

#146 Post by **k s h i n** » June 12th, 2018, 8:27 pm

Nathan V. wrote:
Alan Rath wrote:
Howard Cooper wrote: Fourrier said in an interview with Levi Dalton on I'll Drink to That that he did not think ladybugs is the cause.
There is just no excuse whatsoever for them not to know this. Too easy to compare pyrazines in ladybugs with what's in the wine and know for sure.
It's because the ladybug thing is a red herring. I don't know any vignerons (not that I'm best friends with any in Burgundy) that think 2004 was ladybugs. It was a very weird vintage and the wines are the consequence. The people that think the cause is ladybugs are word people, not logic/science people. I don't know how to structure my arguments to make it any more clear. This is a matter of fact and kshin finding random ladybugs and crushing them and whatever billnanason saw notwithstanding there are facts that pertain and unless and until someone produces them the word people are just crafting a narrative. Honestly, it should be embarrassing (unless, of course, there is actual evidence).

Nathan,
How much more scientific can I get? Get a dead ladybug, crush it and pour into a clean cheap pinot. Also open a bottle of the 04 red. The taint is so unique, one can't miss unless you are completely insensitive to it. It aint' NZ SB kinda green. If you are not willing to try, it is on you.

#147 Post by **Eric Lundblad** » June 12th, 2018, 9:12 pm

Howard Cooper wrote: Fourrier said in an interview with Levi Dalton on I'll Drink to That that he did not think ladybugs is the cause.

Alan Rath wrote: There is just no excuse whatsoever for them not to know this. Too easy to compare pyrazines in ladybugs with what's in the wine and know for sure.

Nathan V. wrote:
It's because the ladybug thing is a red herring. I don't know any vignerons (not that I'm best friends with any in Burgundy) that think 2004 was ladybugs. It was a very weird vintage and the wines are the consequence. The people that think the cause is ladybugs are word people, not logic/science people. I don't know how to structure my arguments to make it any more clear. This is a matter of fact and kshin finding random ladybugs and crushing them and whatever billnanason saw notwithstanding there are facts that pertain and unless and until someone produces them the word people are just crafting a narrative. Honestly, it should be embarrassing (unless, of course, there is actual evidence).

k s h i n wrote: Nathan,
How much more scientific can I get? Get a dead ladybug, crush it and pour into a clean cheap pinot. Also open a bottle of the 04 red. The taint is so unique, one can't miss unless you are completely insensitive to it. It aint' NZ SB kinda green. If you are not willing to try, it is on you.

It's because what you described isn't science...not a criticism, but science doesn't work that way. What Nathan & Alan suggested is right...i.e. have lady bugs that invade burgundy analyzed for the types of pyrazines (mass specrometer? I don't know what equipment's involved), do the same for infected burgs, compare the results.

Unfortunately, our perception is easily fooled by different contexts (and other causes). For example, in the two images below, the color & shade around A and B are identical tho they don't look it. Situations like this are too easy to create, esp in complex wines like burgs.

And Alan's right, someone should do the analysis and answer this (pyrazine) question. They should do the same for premox too tho.

The 2 images above were used from the following article:http://brainden.com/color-illusions.htm

#148 Post by **Jayson Cohen** » June 12th, 2018, 9:20 pm

Nathan V. wrote:
Jayson Cohen wrote:I’ve been observing this back-and-forth battle for years now. No one is changing anyone’s mind.

In any case there was an infestation of Asian lady beetles in Ann Arbor in 2004. I killed hundreds of them in my home. The smell of a single crushed bug is powerful and distinct. I would characterize the smell as similar to what Craig describes, like an intense corrugated cardboard-peanut shell combination. I haven’t had enough 2004 or 2011 Burgindies to see if this is what affected them, but I would know that smell anywhere. Maybe I’ll pull a bottle of (poster child) 2004 Chevillon to see what’s going on there. I’ll serve it to Jay.
You used to be a scientist, so you should know that if you are positing theory you need a hypothesis that can be tested and then you need to test it and produce data. It is incumbent on that party to show the results. Spending too much time around word people has made you believe this is all narrative

Don’t presume to know what’s in my head, young Nathan. Once a scientist, always a scientist. (But I was always a word person too.) Statisticians on the other hand....

#149 Post by **Alan Rath** » June 12th, 2018, 10:29 pm

Eric Lundblad wrote:And Alan's right.

Quoting for future reference

#150 Post by **Alan Rath** » June 12th, 2018, 10:30 pm

Eric Lundblad wrote:And Alan's right, someone should do the analysis and answer this (pyrazine) question. They should do the same for premox too tho.

Pyrazines = easy
Premox = very hard