Interesting that the Valmur is showing advanced age (noted by both Gerard and Don) but the Les Clos is not. I have a case of 2008 Fevre Les Clos and all of the bottles so far (most recent two weeks ago) have shown beautifully.
How do we fit this observation in with the various theories behind premox? For example, do the Les Clos and Valmur use the same corks?
(And, echoing everyone else, thank you Don for this post. Wonderfully informative.)
To me, it’s just another small data point suggesting that corks and seals aren’t the issue. That is to say, corks aren’t the reason White Burgundies started having a premox problem in the 1990s, or the reason one producer has it happen often and another producer only rarely.
Having said that, switching from corks to screwcaps could still be a solution. Tests in Australia show very convincingly that screwcaps are a strong defense against premox. That would make all the sense in the world - producers could still make White Burgundies in the riper, less acidic, earlier drinking, more crowd pleasing style they have trended towards in the last 20 years (which is what I personally think is the main reason premox started, though I’m no expert), but could probably still greatly reduce the amount of premox simply by switching to screwcaps.
That isn’t likely to happen, since (a) customers still aren’t very open to screwcaps on expensive wines, and (b) Burgundy producers aren’t feeling any pain from premox in terms of declining sales or weakening pricing, so they have no motivation to change unless it’s purely out of an actual desire to have their wines stand up to time and pride in what they make and sell.
Just dropping into the thread to say “Thank you Don!”
I think you’ve just been randomly lucky with your clos so far.
+1 on that observation. As I said in my notes, three tasters thought the Clos was advanced when I polled the group near the end of the first flight. I didn’t think so at the time, but roughly 3 hours later when I was making my last pass through the wines, I did think the Clos was showing advanced. Had we voted at that time, I suspect the outcome would have been different.
Starting with the 2009 vintage, Fevre (and sister company Bouchard) switched to DIAM corks. I don’t think the 2009 vintage will give us a good basis of comparison, because of the very ripe conditions and low acidity, but it will be very interesting to see how the 2010 Fevres compare with the prior vintages at the same stage (two years from now.)
Haven’t yet had a premoxed Fevre under diam, but this is limited to 12 or so bottles of mostly 07 les Lys or fourchaume.
Herwig is totally right about Leflaives premox problems before 2007.
There has been several threads on Wine Pages about the 04, 05 and 06 vintages. Pretty much the consensus has been they have been a disgrace.
Not sure this is always an accurate guide…If anything it seems sometimes to be the other way?
Vintages like '03 and '06 seem to have quite a low incidence of premox, whereas the more high acid, leaner '07’s (for example) seem to be more problematic in general???
Gareth:
Let’s break that down by year, because I think you’re painting with much too broad of a brush, plus I think we need a common understanding of what “premature oxidation” is.
2004
Neither my experience or the notes posted on the Wiki site support the conclusion that there’s any oxidation problem for Leflaive in 2004.
I bought 6 bottles of 2004 Puligny Pucelles, 6 Bienvenues, 6 Batard and 18 bottles of 2004 Chevy. I’ve consumed all of the Bienvenues, 4 of the Pucelles, 4 of the Batard and 10 of the Chevy, plus the wines we had at the 2004 premox dinners and I haven’t had a single bottle that’s been either advanced or oxidized. To the contrary, the wines have been excellent and 2004 is absolutely my favorite Leflaive vintage for currrent drinking, though I’m also still partial to 2000 and 2002 Leflaive Chevy. For the longest time the 2004 Batard was so reductive that I was beginning to think it is permanently reductive, but those issues are all resolved now.
The only 2004 Leflaive wine that I’m aware of problems with is the 2004 Puligny Clavoillon. There are many reports about this wine on the Wiki site. Three or four people have described the wine as oxidized on the wiki site, but I believe that what they were experiencing is a wine which was so reductive that it was permanently reductive and was suffering from mercaptans. Allen Meadows and I have mutually experienced this with two separate bottles served at a Leflaive dinner a few years ago. We both agreed that the wine was one of those rare “permanently reductive” wines that would never get any better and would only get worse, which in most case means mercaptans. This resulted from large amounts of elemental sulphur being placed on the grapes as an oidium treatment and some of that sulphur getting trapped in between the grapes and eventually making it into the juice at the crusher. The 2004 Domaine Leflaive wines were so strongly reductive when they were released, and for a number of years thereafter (a combination of Leflaive’s then-normal reductive style of wine making plus the extra elemental sulphur that was used in the vineyard), that a number of us have speculated that this vintage was the reason that Eric Remy changed the Domaine Leflaive wine-making process when he took over. I just had another 2004 Chevalier a few days ago and it would have easily made my top three wines if it had been included with the 2008s.
2005
Let’s start out with the fact the 2005 whites vintage is the worst for premature oxidation (in terms of the percentage of advanced or oxidized wines) of all time. That’s likely due to the very low acidity and high ripeness of the vintage.
On the 2005 vintage, while I have experienced no advanced wines or oxidized wines from Domaine Leflaive, there are a few reports of oxidized bottles of the straight Puligny AOC, including two bottles reported on by you from October 2014. There are also two reports of oxidized bottles of Puligny Clavoillon on the wiki site, both from 2015 including one on a 375 ml bottle. There’s also one reported oxidized bottle of Montrachet opened by the owner of Vega Sicilia in 2015 and one bottle out of two Meursault Dos D’Anne opened by a restaurant in 2013. I won’t even comment about the Macon, which I don’t think anyone has a reasonable right to expect will generally age beyond five years, from any producer. None of the major Leflaive wines have any reports of premox aside from the the one bottle of Montrachet.
On the reports of some Puligny AOC being oxidized when opened in 2013 to 2015, yes the bottles may have been oxidized but I don’t think it’s fair to call that “premature” oxidation especially given the vintage conditions. If this were not Leflaive people would positively laugh at the suggestion of calling an oxidation failure for Puligny AOC at 8 to 11 years old “premature” oxidation. Similarly, while I acknowledge that someone opened a 375 ml of 2005 Puligny Clavoillon in 2015 and found it oxidized, that in no way can be considered to be premature oxidation.
Aside from the one bottle of reported Leflaive Montrachet, which I would like to know more details about, there are no reported premox failures of the grand crus or top 1ers and I certainly haven’t experienced any myself. From the 2005 vintage, I owned only six 2005 Chevy (four consumed and two remain) and 3 2005 Batard (all consumed). Not a single bottle has been oxidized or advanced, but I do remember that the 2005 Batard we had at the 2005 vintage Night Two dinner had some ripe peach aromas, although no one thought the wine was advanced.
2006
On 2006, which was a vintage that was massively botrytis affected and was disgustingly cloying to my palate when we tasted about 40 of them upon initial release, I have tasted only three bottles of Leflaive – all were Chevalier. All three bottles were overwhelmingly botrytised and the were disgustingly dirty, flawed wines. Absolutely undrinkable wines in my view and I’ve said many times, without any doubt, it’s the worst vintage for Leflaive Chevalier I’ve ever experienced (and I’ve had a number of the so-called "off " vintages like 1991, 1994, 1997, 1998 etc). The Chevy had such obvious defects every time I tasted it that I said, and will repeat here, that Lefliave absolutely should never have released that wine. The bottle we had at the 2006 vintage assessment dinner (our only Leflaive that evening) was agreed by all to be “advanced,” but the wine was so technically flawed that being advanced seemed irrelevant to me.
There are six reports of oxidized bottles of 2006 on the wiki site and a larger number of reports that the wines were excessively ripe, exotic, fat and other descriptors one would never associate with Leflaive. While I have no experience with any of the Leflaive wines from 2006 other than Chevalier, I have to wonder whether some of the problems that people attributed to being “oxidized” had more to do with the same excessive botrytis and gross wine making flaws I experienced three times with the 2006 Chevalier.
I know that Eric Remy finished the elevage on the 2006s after Pierre Morey retired, but whether he did anything different on the elevage after Pierre’s departure is unknown to me. It’s possible that the premox problem for Leflaive starts with 2006, but with fairly limited data, a hugely disappointing vintage and other technical wine-making flaws, it’s hard for me to draw definitive conclusions.
Man…I own a single bottle of 06 Leflaive Chevy…and now I want to go hide in the corner by myself and open it to try! 
Paul:
I will agree that 2003 apparently has a low percentage of premox (though I’ve tasted very few), but I think that vintage, being the worst drought vintage and excessively warm vintage since either 1947 of 1976 (take your pick) is really sui generis. I didn’t buy any 2003s and while they may not be oxidized, the 2003s sure don’t taste like burgundy to me.
On the more generalized theory you posit, I would respectfully disagree. The numbers just don’t bear that out. Below is an excerpt from the notes from night three on the 2007 tasting, where I reported the cumulative statistics. Below are the ones for the 2004 to 2007 vintage dinners.
2004 vintage:
Corked – 1/63 (2%)
Permanently Reduced- 1/63 (2%)
Oxidized–3/63 (5%) Second lowest percentage of oxidized wines ever
Advanced-5/63 (8%) Tied for lowest percentage of advanced wines ever
Total Oxidized + advanced- 8/63 (12.7%) Second lowest total percentage ever
2005 vintage:
Corked: 1/66 (2%) [Corked bottle of Raveneau MDT replaced on night one]
Oxidized: 4/65 (6%)
Advanced:16/65 (25%) Highest percentage of advanced wines ever
Total Oxidized + advanced: 20/65 (31%) Highest total percentage ever
2006 vintage:
Corked - 0/28 (some controversy about one wine)
Oxidation - 0/28 group consensus; but two partially oxidized later 0%/7.1%
Advanced - 4/28 14.3%
Oxidized or advanced - 6/28 21.4%
2007 Vintage:
Corked - 1/71 1.41%
Oxidation - 3/71 4.23% Lowest percentage of oxidized wines ever
Advanced - 6/71 8.45% or 9/71 (my count) 12.68%
Oxidized or advanced - 9/71 12.68% (lowest group total ever) or 12/71 (my count) 16.9%
I can also add that if you look at the charts to calculate total free molecular SO2, you will see that the level of free MOLECULAR SO2, which is a measure of the true ability of SO2 to protect ethanol from oxidation, is very ph dependent. As one popular chart points out, the rule of thumb is that at pH 3.5, 50% of the SO2 is chemically bound (and thus not effective in preventing premox) and 50% remains as free molecular SO2. But at pH 3.1, 25% is bound and 75% remains as free molecular SO2.
Another way of looking at this is – if the “free molecular SO2” target for white wine is 0.8% (which is considered the “default” rate for American winemakers), and if the ph of the wine is 3.5, you need to add 40 parts per million of total free SO2 to achieve the 0.8% molecular target. Whereas, if the ph is 3.2% you need only 21 parts per million to achieve the same 0.8% target. If the ph of the wine is 3.1, you need only 16 ppm of total free SO2 to hit the same 0.8% target.
When you use fixed or relatively fixed “free SO2” targets to make the wine, as most burgundy winemakers do, the level of free molecular SO2 becomes driven purely by the ph of the wine. So in years with the highest acidity (i.e. lowest ph), the “free molecular SO2” level in the wine will be much higher, and the wine is likely to be resistant to oxidation for a longer period of time. (Think about the best 1996 and 2002 white burgundies, both high acid years). But in the very low acid years, e.g. 2015, 2012, 2009, 2006 and 2005, the same level of total free SO2 used gets you only about half as much (or in the case of 2005 or 2015, less than half as much) free molecular SO2 to protect the wine from premox.
With me so far? Here are two more implications from the science. First, global warming is really causing havoc for French wine makers because they historically used fixed “free SO2” additions regardless of vintage conditions, e.g. their target each year is let’s say 30 ppm of free SO2. In a high acid/low ph year like 2010, you’re doing great. But in 2005, with low acid and much higher ph, your wine goes advanced of maybe prematurely oxidizes. So if you were a producer who traditionally used relatively low level levels of “free SO2”, you got away with it as long as the climate was cooler and the ph of the wines was low, but global warming meant if you didn’t increase your target level for “free SO2” your wine was bound to be advanced or oxidized about half of the time.
And here’s the second implication from the science. Burgundy producers should be varying the amount of “free SO2” according to ph of the wines.
Don, thanks as always for the great data points.
Eric L brings up an interesting point about casein fining. I know that Clendenen and Lindquist both use skim milk for fining.
The study by Denis Dubourdieu and Avril Lavigne about glutathiones was also quite interesting.
Lalou (of DomLeroy) always said that thelees nourish the wine, but she forgot to mention how they can protect it.
Don,
I can hardly wait for another installment!
Thanks for the refresh Don,
I’d forgotten some of those stats!
Yes, I agree your probably right, however, I have been concerned with the direction '07’s seem to be heading recently, and have had a lot of issues (maybe just bad luck) with mine in the last 12 months, with a disproportionately high number of advanced or oxidized wines…
I an yet to see an oxidized '06 or '03 though.
I also agree with '04’s generally having a low rate (still!), although I did have some issues with a few Ramonets (not to mention the terrible LeMoines, they are best forgotten).
Paul:
Yes, it’s not really a linear equation because you have things like botrytis, which somehow changes the chemistry, and in some cases seems to prevent premox to some degree. And in 2004 you have the elemental sulfur treatments for oidium, that also retarded premox. At least there’s a theoretically consistent explanation for the latter. I still don’t know why some botrytised wines seem to live longer.
Hi Don , after your post… there is only one thing to do : open more Leflaive’s and I will do that . As I mentioned in a post above, I agree the 2004 Leflaive wines have not been affected as far as I know , those are the ones I did not sell of .
I had a Montrachet 05 with Allen Meadows and it was premoxed . I also had a Batard 05 that was oxidized .
No comment on 06 , you are spot on . Don’t like the vintage , I even don’t like the Coche Dury 06’s .
And 03 is basically a waste .
But the biggest disappointments with leflaive wines were the 2002’s . From my case of 12 Pucelles , 50 % was oxidized . Several Batards and Chevaliers were too . This is really painful because the good ones were fantastic .
The story on the 2002 Leflaives is very depressing, especially because I have 3 more 2002 Chevalier in my commercial storage. I went back through my tasting notes and records. I owned 1 btl of Bienvenues (corked), two bottles of Batard (both fine), 6 btls of Chevalier (first 3 were fine; 3 more from another source are still in my cellar). I also had two Pucelles (both fine), and one Folatieres (fine).
The one strange piece of data that I thought I had finally reconciled was that a friend in Los Angeles that used to be in our local burgundy group (I think he attended the dinner in Marina del Rey on one of your visits here) brought 3 different bottles of 2002 Leflaive Chevalier to dinners held in February 2008 (5.5 years old), Feb 2010 (7.5 years old) and July 2010 (almost 8 years old). All of the bottles were served blind. While none of these bottles was commented on by me or anyone from the group as being advanced or oxidized, all three of these bottles of Chevalier performed two or three points below expectations based on the prior bottles out of my cellar. After the third consecutive sub-par bottle from my friend, Michael Zadikian and I opened one of my bottles as a test, and it was beautiful, just like the first two I had opened.
I now began having doubts about where my friend had sourced his bottles of Chevalier. I asked him and learned that the bottles were all acquired from Rochambeau in New York, who was known to store the bottles in the shop or the small store room in the rear in ambient air conditions. I had previously purchased wine from this merchant that turned out to be heat damaged and thus had stopped purchasing there. So I wrote off all three bottles to probable heat damage. It probably was in fact heat damage, but now I’m left to ponder the question again.
I did see, in one of my notes from the last bottle that I tasted in 2010, that I had referenced a public comment made by Eric Remy, the current winemaker at Leflaive, that Leflaive had experienced some premoxed bottles in 2002.
And Cherisy. Kermit Lynch, who imports the wines, has been very high on the domaine. I had the good fortune to sit beside Kermit at a lunch some time ago, and he was much more interested in talking about Cherisy than Roulot or Coche Dury because he thought the domaine’s wines were superb and undiscovered. I enjoyed seeing this wine in your line-up, Don, and as so many others have said, thank you for doing all that is required to organize these events and then report about them. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
You’re welcome Martin. I’ve tried a few different vintages of the De Cherisey Blagny Genelottes and I thought it would be very educational to include with the flight of Perrieres. I think 2008 is the best vintage of De Cherisey I’ve had so far. My impression is that the wine wasn’t as good in 2007 or 2010. In both of those years it was much more lean and angular. It definitely has high-toned Meursault Perrieres-like minerality, which got my attention and the attention of Jasper Morris. It’s just a question of whether you can accept the palate being “thin” in some vintages. It’s probably a good candidate to buy in vintages like 2012 and maybe even 2009.
Unfortunately, De Cherisey is another brand where Kermit adds a huge markup over for himself over and above the cost in Europe. It’s one thing to buy De Cherisey at the prevailing prices in Europe (the 2014 is $45 per bottle in London right now), but to me, at least, totally unacceptable to have to pay $90+ to buy the same wine from Kermit or his various retailers.
Mine is the over the top scores the WA gave to 1992 Verget. I bet they caused a lot of wineries to change practices.