Beaujolais is a new found pleasure for me.
I confess, I was a little surprised to read that, given that 2018 is generally higher in alcohol and lower in acidity than 2017. However, reading the article, I think where Josh (whose work I admire) and I differ is more in our assessment of 2017—which he regards as displaying “in most cases, less energy than the 2015s”—than in our interpretation of the 2018s. While there are certainly some 2017s that nod to powerful and frequently borderline-overripe 2015 vintage in style, and while there are others that are a bit chewier structurally than usual due to the impact of hail, I like 2017 quite a bit as a vintage, and am happy to have more '17s in my cellar than '15s.
Regardless of admiration, that is a pretty big delta to say 2017 is richer than 2018 especially among professional critics. Are there wines you tasted where this was true, if so, can you jot down a couple?
Appreciate it William.
KP
Well, it would be true to say that 2017 is frequently richer in tannin, whereas 2018 is—generally—lower in acidity and richer in alcohol. For me, lower acidity and higher alcohol in the 2018s makes them feel “richer” than most 2017s. Perhaps it’s just a question of defining terms. But I think it’s best to read the full article. And the conclusion I drew from that is that Josh must have encountered more over-ripe 2017s than I did. It’s a selection of wines I liked enough to buy, but 2017s from my cellar from Foillard, J Chammonard, Métras, Sylvain Chanudet, Bouland and Chermette certainly don’t display less energy than 2015s and, where I’ve tasted their 2018 counterparts, are certainly not richer than those wines to my palate.
In the final analysis, however, both 2017 and 2018 are quite ripe, sunny vintages, even if they’re quite different in style.
I have read it as a Vinous subscriber and this is the snippet that caught me a bit off guard when discussing the weather, yields and resulting harvest. When Josh says richer along with more dark fruit than normal, that is where I get lost a bit.
“That means more weight and dark fruit than normal and, in most cases, less energy than the 2015s. The 2017s are decidedly richer than their 2018 and 2016 bookends.” - JR
Yeah, I don’t know how to square that either.
Yeah that doesn’t compute with what I’ve tasted. Very much the opposite.
Josh mailed me and clarified that while he tasted many 2018s side by side with their 2017 counterparts the 17s were darker and the 18s were redder and that he believed low yields in 2017 were a main contributor as well as higher yields giving the redder profile in 18. Hopefully Josh would chime in here.
Ultimately it’s a snapshot in time and we will see if it holds true when 2018s have a year in bottle, my guess is it’s just a situation where time in bottle will give greater clarity on vintage characteristics and which of the two people prefer.
a bit off topic but what are your thoughts on the wines of jules metras vs. those of yvon? i have liked what i have tasted in france very much but have yet to try any of the bottles in my cellar…hopefully they made the journey across the atlantic safely.
I like them quite a bit and there is a clear family resemblance. It’s nice to see something interesting happening in Chiroubles.
I am really struggling with the notion that the 2017s display “in most cases, less energy than the 2015s”, but I guess time will tell.
I’m not in y’alls League, but to me, that’s crazy. I’ve bought and tried quite a bit of both. 2017 has far more snap. The 2015 vintage is more opulent like 2009. I prefer 2017 to both of those ripe vintages, and yet, 2017 is quite ripe as well. At least with the wines that I have tried, 2017 is also more structured.
This wine held up well recently for at least four days after
opening, kept in a cool place👍
The Printemps is in my glass right now. It’s a bit reduced on opening, so responds well to a bit of aeration and time in the glass. Once the reduction blows off, it’s dominated by dark berry fruit—mulberries, black raspberries—with hints of peony and cardamon. On the palate, it’s medium to full-bodied, textural and enveloping, with a fleshier, broader profile than the 2017, but more completely ripe, powdery tannins, too. Acidity is succulent and the wine is well balanced. From my cellar, I would give this another twelve months, as it’s less immediate than the 2017 was at the same age, but bear in mind that my bottles have travelled all of an-hour-and-a-half from the domaine, so your milage may vary further from the source.
2018 Guy Breton Regnie is excellent!
I’ve had the '18 Lapierre- Morgon a couple of times now and it’s solid, but I expected more from this vintage.
A bit of a swerve here:
Consider: Vinous rates as 94 points 2018 Julien Sunier Fleurie, same score Vinous gives 2009 Spottswoode CS.
Stylistically different of course.
Preaching to the choir, I know: there are some screaming relative values in Beaujolais!
That’s what most people seem to think. Most people are wrong.
I had the 2018 Jean Paul et Charly Thevenet Morgon V.V. last night, and it was quite good. Not quite as tart (or quite as good) as the '17 on opening, but still completely delicious and worth buying. No elements of over-ripeness and no excessive richness/heaviness, and still plenty of good, tart cranberry fruit. In addition, I actually found that the '17, after being open for several hours, developed a bit of a microbial character (a chemically taste reminiscent of the aftertaste of certain kids cereals–think Captain Crunch, Freakies, King Vitamin, etc., or even certain vitamin supplements). This didn’t happen with the '18, which held solid over the 3-4 hours that I consumed it. Thus, while I have a slight preference of '17 if drinking the bottle promptly, I may prefer the '18 of this wine “overall”, and certainly for aging…an exception to my overall impression of '17 vs '18.