'96 Burgs ?

WINE TALK
1

Had the chance to sample a couple of '96 Burgs over the past few days.

The first, a '96 Grivot - Echezeaux, was thin upon opening.
After a half hour, some cherry appeared on the nose. I could detect some underlying complexity, but either this needs a lot more time, or the acid may be too much of a match for the fruit. At this point, I will give it the benefit of the doubt, but I would revisit 3-5 years from now.

D’angerville - Champans - after 20 minutes, the beautiful violet, iron nose emerged. A perfectly balanced nose, not too heavy nor light, the essence of Volnay, special. On the palate, the wine is medium weight, pleasant, but it’s the nose I keep returning to.

So far, these '96s are a mixed bad, or do some of them just need more time… ?

2

Josh to me the answers to your questions are “yes” and “yes”.
The Arnoux Suchots on the other hand will make you a true believer in 96 as does the Lambrays.

3

Solely depends on the wine. It’s a hit and miss vintage. The 96 Pavelot Narbantons I recently had made was worth donating a kidney for. The 96 Maumes I have (a producer I love, and many here will attest to) have seen better days.

Best to check CT, or post a TNR. Lots of Burg lovers on here that can give sage words or wisdom.

4

1996 Mommessin Clos des Tart should be tasting right…last few bottles I’ve had have been tasty!

5

Have liked quite a few 96 reds not minding a wine a little on the youthful side. In general, would suggest the vintage is just starting to come around. The ones opened to date and enjoyed have required some time in the glass to open up. Thinking of two good examples: 96 DRC Grands Echezeaux and 96 Armand Rousseau Clos St Jacques.

In terms of whites, have been more disappointed than not in bottles tasted. Several terrible premoxed Ramonet, relatively light Bouchard, and not so exciting, leaner Domaine Leflaive.

6

Interesting. I think of 96 white burgs, when not premoxed, as some of the greatest white burgs in a long,long time. I’m not sure that there has been a better vintage of white burg since. Which makes it all the more sad.

7

The reds are starting to come around (I’m sure there are disappointments, but I’ve been pleased overall), HOWEVER… it’s a high acid year. If you don’t like good acids on your Pinot, your opinion might be lower than mine. To me, as long as the wine had enough material to produce decent fruit, the wines are really quite nice and with some, the nose is great. It’s not a vintage for people who liked, say, 1990 red Burgs.

8

Ian, are you certain that your Maumes won’t see better days again? I ask because these wines often take a full ten-fifteen years to close down. Anyway, as ever when burgundies appear to be on the decline I suggest putting them away and forgetting for a few years, if they are from good producers then joy nearly always ensues.

9

I own some Mazis, and have not opened those, but the En Pallaud has been variable (1 singer, and 2 sub par and flat) and same with the Charmes. The Les Champeaux was very, very light too. Only the Charmes came across as acidic.

10

After reading this thread, I checked into my cellar inventory for my experiences with '96 over the last couple of years. I still think this vintage will be terrific; I was less optimistic a couple of years ago. Of course, as usual, I can only really comment based on the limited group of producers I’ve bought year after year from the mid-80s to 2005 vintages. But, they are all, IMO, all 20 year wines, though some have provided good drinking now, with tons of aeration…and I’m talking about in open decanters all day. Some, I noted, showed great the next day left in open decanter. But, they did ultimately show quite well, albeit with prominent acidity which, when balanced, isn’t a bad thing at all.

I did, of necessity (no planning; last minute grab of something standing up to let the sediment drop) “pop and pour” a couple of them. They were quite good…for almost an hour…and then crawled back into their dens to hibernate. To me, this is a good sign…and exactly what I’d expect. Pop and pour with such wines can give a brief glimpse of potential. The problem is it isn’t guaranteed to perform like that for more than a few minutes.

I don’t think these wines are “meant” for real enjoyment now, without lots of manipulating. And, unfortunately, I think it is a vintage that might, like 1983…show its best at age 25. [help.gif] …which is why I’ve stopped buying with the 2005s for the most part.


Oh, and I do disagree with Mr. Gregory’s proclamation, above, that It’s not a vintage for people who liked, say, 1990 red Burgs. I like the '96s just fine. I think 1990 is turning out to be a very great vintage, that is still,for the most part, on the upswing. Beautiful, surprisingly balanced wines, delicious to drink now, but with more promise ahead. Like '96, IMO, they showed much less great over the first15 years, where most people who dismissed them seem to have drunk them …or sold them. That Rick’s statement is in the past tense suggests he considers it a vintage that is in the past?. During this year, I’ve enjoyed many 1990 wow wines with knowledgable Burg people…and also with winelovers…who’ve almost always been wowed. (The Rousseau Chambertin is the glaring exception.)

11

This thread is obviously about the reds, but I couldn’t let a reference to “lean” Leflaives pass without comment. In a white Burg vintage terribly afflicted with premox, the Leflaive Chevalier and Batard have been consistently spectacular.

12

I haven’t tried any '96s recently, but I think this vintage will show the difference between those who picked later and those who did not. The extra ripeness (and maybe density) will be very welcome! I tasted some Laurent wines and some Jadots early on and thought both produced some excellent wines. Haven’t re-tasted them recently.

13

Just posted on a 1996 Meo NSG Boudots. Very enjoyable.

Cheers,
Doug

14

96 jadot CSJ is pretty incredible at the price point. Rousseau CSJ is pretty damn good as well. But I think most of them blossom over a significant amount of air. Just not ready for prime time yet.

15

That wine rarely disappoints.

16

Yes, what happened with Maume in 96? The Champeaux was softable and chuggable starting six or seven years ago and the last bottle I opened a year or so ago was tired. Weird!

Have you had the 96 Lavaux-St. Jacques? I have a couple of bottles of that I haven’t touched yet.

17

Stuart,

Let me expand on my 1990 comment…

'90 was a warm, ripe year. Of the wines I have tried over the years, that characteristic marks the vintage. It’s softer, more open-knit and more about ripe fruit than is usual. 96, in contrast, is (very) high acid and it’s possible that people who like the former will not like the latter as much. Not everyone likes the effect of the significant acid levels of the vintage. So, perhaps what I should have said is the above vs the shorthand that I used above.

On 1990… I have limited experience with the vintage over the years, but it’s always struck me as a vintage that’s much more about Pinot than about Burgundy, i.e. it’s a vintage that emphasized palate over nose and fruit over terroir and structure. For my tastes, it’s behind 93 and 96 and even behind, in some ways, 91. But then you have to understand that my tastes lead me away from bigness and straightforward fruit as I think those are pretty easy to find… I want structure, aromatics, complexity and interesting flavors aside from the pure fruit ones. On those grounds I’ve liked other vintages more than '90.

Finally, I agree that the 96s that are high quality are just starting to peek out of their shells. No one should be in a hurry to drink up and I’m letting my better bottles sit for another few years.

18

IMO, Rick, your impression of 1990 is a stereotype and doesn’t really describe 1990. That’s my issue.

What you prefer is what you prefer. You really ought to get some 1990s and check them out now. I don’t think your characterizations of the 1990 wines really comes close to describing them, though. I don’t like wines that fit with your description of 1990 either.

Again, we need to state criteria for describing a vintage. Accross the board, which mine is…only 2005 and, maybe 2002 come close to 1990 for good wine. Maybe some of the other vintages you list have higher heights…though I’m not sure, but think they do. But, those vintages, including 1996 and 1993 need to be chosen very very carefully and in a limited geographical part of the Cotes. 1991, I’ll have to say, has never wowed me, though I had high hopes. I hope to check them out more seriously next year…though I don’t have tons left.

19

1996 Jadot Volnay Santenots last night was great. Ive enjoyed the vast majority of 96s Ive tried (not too many) but Rick makes a good point and I like high acid wines.

20

fair enough Stuart, though I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say 90 as high acid, terroir driven and all about structure. neener

The problem is that I didn’t care for how they were evolving at age 10 and so don’t have any in my cellar and I imagine the ones worth having at age 20 are pricey. I’ve had examples here and there out of others’s cellars and none of have really wowed me, but as I noted my experience with the vintage is limited. Ah, well, we all miss some things. I’ll live.