I agree that few premier crus need 30+ years to mature. Too many people know little about Burgundy and listen to crazy stories that are nowhere near true. So, we get crazy threads like this. It reminds me of when my kids were in high school and people would always frighten them about getting into college - there were always stories about some “kid” (never any names) who had a 4.0 and 1600 on the SATs and did not get into the state college (in our case, Maryland). For too many, burgundy stories are like this.
Like with any other region, how much time it takes for a wine to mature depends on a lot of things and is producer dependent, vintage dependent and vineyard dependent. Would you judge all Bordeaux on how long it takes Latour to mature, on how long it has taken 1986s to mature, etc.? Similarly, there is no one steadfast rule for Burgundies.
A few examples. I have been very much enjoying Burgundies right now from 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007 and 2008. However, most 2005s are too young. It is the nature of the vintage. It likely will be a great vintage, but the wines are taking a long time to soften.
A producer I like a lot is Rossignol-Trapet. Their 2001 Latricieres Chambertin is drinking fabulously right now. However, their 2001 Chambertin is still too young.
And, any discussion that is limited to the wines of DRC, Leroy, Roumier and Rousseau is irrelevant for most people.
As I wrote above VR Les Chaumes is one of the 1er Crus that should reach drinkability earlier. It is situated quite low on the hill (only 1er Cru Clos des Reas is lower) with rather deep soil. Moreover 2007 is a vintage that was generally accessible quite early … and the vinemaking of Louis-Michel does not favour structure about fruit … so what. Even La Romanee 2007 was drinking wonderfully a year ago …
All that doesn´t mean that these wines won´t keep another 10+ years … but if you prefer them now or in 2028 is simply personal preference.
Just fwiw the 2008 are a different story. Some might seem to be quite accessable now, but most (better wines) don´t show many tertiaery characteristics - and most also have still structure to resolve … so I would wait another 5 years at least for these …
(talking about the top wines …)
I think some 2005 volnay are drinking great atm. I wouldn’t crack an epeneaux or Ducs but I greatly enjoyed a 05 Nicholas rossignol chevret earlier this year.
Agreed. A Bouley Chenes was very good a few weeks ago, just approaching maturity. I was pleasantly surprised as I’d all but written this wine off based on previous bottles.
This is exactly what I am looking for. Thank you! Now that my cellar is stocked full (by my standards, anyways) of long-agers from GC vineyards. I am looking for wines/vineyards/producers/vintages that aren’t punishing or a “waste” to pop earlier. Comte Liger-Belair’s Les Chaumes is a good example for what I am looking for. Something that is drinkable much earlier on in its life.
Jadot Beaunes
Most Beaunes in general
Most Volnay and Pommard, although I disagree with Mich@el Ch@ng about Comte Armand Epeneaux, which always seems too young. Courcel also needs long age.
Most Savignys, as mentioned.
Most Santenays, especially Muzard and Clair.
Most red Chassagnes, which can be wonderful and excellent value (by Burgundy standards)
I was about to say Even some of the 05s, which I have been leaving alone as well, yes, they are starting to come into a drinking window.
Interesting to read the remarks about Rousseau being enjoyable young. Haven’t had enough of 'em to weigh in
I’d agree with Beaune 1ers and Savignys as well–in general. As many have noted, there are always exceptions. Clavelier and Mugneret-Gibourg are two producers where I’ve enjoyed their wines through a broad temporal spectrum. Taupenot-Merme fits in here too.
Totally agree with this. Burgundy has a less linear aging curve than a lot of other regions and goes through a lot of phases. Which phase you like will depend on your taste, not any hard and fast rule. Aging Burgundy for 30-50 years is supposed to be a mark of sophistication and it’s become almost an affectation now to perpetually say Burgundy is “not ready” and needs another ten years. But it really depends on how much fruit you want in your wine. Two of the best wines I’ve had in a long time were the 2006 Clos Des Lambrays and the 2005 Bouchard Corton – Grand Crus at 12 and 13 years old. I thought they were fantastic, the Lambrays at the absolute peak balance of fruit and complexity for me, the Bouchard had more primary fruit and could clearly improve even more but it was still terrific.
In contrast I’ve had some Grand Crus from the 70s and 80s that others raved about but I was like, meh…I’m not so hot on celery and mushrooms, thanks.
At the end of the day, I wonder if some of Louis-Michel’s lower AOCs are seeing a bit too much new wood for their own good. It’s lovely new wood and not too in-your-face, but it does mark the wines strongly if you have a lot of experience with barrels, and I think it does tire the wines a bit. The Reignots and La Romanée have the substance to handle it (2015 La Romanée blind a couple of weeks ago was brilliant) but I think what the lower appellations gain in drama and immediacy they are sacrificing in potential longevity.
Great suggestions here! M-G Chaignots can be so pleasing when young! Also, Fourrier can be super tasty and delicious as youngsters, especially recently.
We had a 2005 Epeneaux last Saturday, and thought it was delicious. The fruit was ripe, plummy, with a dense backbone that would indicate a long life, but I was not at all ashamed to have opened it.
Even some of the 05s, which I have been leaving alone as well, yes, they are starting to come into a drinking window.