Burgundy aging rule of thumb

[Peter_Chiu]

Howard…yes …I agree.

It is also the general character of the vintage year which is also the key.

[Keith_Levenberg]

Village wines and 1er crus don’t tend to take much less time to reach maturity than grand crus. If you want to drink mature Burgundy you’re looking at a minimum 20 years whether it’s Clos des Ursules or Clos de Beze. Alan’s “triple the critics” is probably about as good a rule of thumb as you’re gonna get.

[William_Kelley]

Village wines and 1er crus don’t tend to take much less time to reach maturity than grand crus. If you want to drink mature Burgundy you’re looking at a minimum 20 years whether it’s Clos des Ursules or Clos de Beze. Alan’s “triple the critics” is probably about as good a rule of thumb as you’re gonna get.

This is an important point. When people say that village wines shouldn’t age as long as grands crus, I think that they are frequently assuming that this is because of where a wine comes from; whereas I’m convinced it’s more to do with how the wine is made. Site can influence how a wine ages in so far as it influences must pH and grape maturity. So sites that produce low pH fruit that is also fully physiologically mature will produce more ageworthy wines than sites that don’t. But when you walk a few meters out of Gevrey-Chambertin AOC into Charmes-Chambertin, or from Puligny-Montrachet AOC into Bâtard-Montrachet, must chemistry doesn’t suddenly and decisively change. What often does change is how many producers tend to make the wines…

[Howard_Cooper]

I find simple aging rules of thumb to be extremely useful and mostly accurate for Bordeaux, but almost useless for Burgundy. About all you can say is that soon after the vintage date it will be fruity and open, and then at an indeterminate point after the vintage date it will shut down, stay closed for some indeterminate number of years, then reopen in a different form for an indeterminate period of years, possibly shut down again, etc. And it depends on vintage. And the primary fruit will gradually fade with age. etc.

Howard’s point about the different personalities of wines at different ages is also very true and important. I have seen people advising not to drink Burgundy young, not because it was really closed down, but because they thought it was a waste to drink Burgundy on the fruit rather than waiting for full tertiary complexity. But that depends on your taste (and your age lol).

I like Burgundy when young and full of fruit (esp in vintages like 2017) so buy some Bourgogne and other less expensive wines for that purpose.

[Brady_Daniels]

Village wines and 1er crus don’t tend to take much less time to reach maturity than grand crus. If you want to drink mature Burgundy you’re looking at a minimum 20 years whether it’s Clos des Ursules or Clos de Beze. Alan’s “triple the critics” is probably about as good a rule of thumb as you’re gonna get.

This is an important point. When people say that village wines shouldn’t age as long as grands crus, I think that they are frequently assuming that this is because of where a wine comes; whereas I’m convinced it’s more to do with how the wine is made. Site can influence how a wine ages in so far as it influences must pH and grape maturity. So sites that produce low pH fruit that is also fully physiologically mature will produce more ageworthy wines than sites that don’t. But when you walk a few meters out of Gevrey-Chambertin AOC into Charmes-Chambertin, or from Puligny-Montrachet AOC into Bâtard-Montrachet, must chemistry doesn’t suddenly and decisively change. What often does change is how many producers tend to make the wines…

I drink my village wines younger because they are cheaper, not because they can’t go the distance.

[Peter_Chiu]

I normally buy a few wines from the portfolio of my prefer producer - for example Des Croix : Corton Les Greves; Beaune 1er Les Bressandesand A-Corton Les Boutieres - all from the vintage year.

Needless to say, I will drink his A-Corton, first and young. The purpose is …to have a feel so that I may have a long-term plan ( for when to open the others).

[JBrochu]

Village wines and 1er crus don’t tend to take much less time to reach maturity than grand crus. If you want to drink mature Burgundy you’re looking at a minimum 20 years whether it’s Clos des Ursules or Clos de Beze. Alan’s “triple the critics” is probably about as good a rule of thumb as you’re gonna get.

This is an important point. When people say that village wines shouldn’t age as long as grands crus, I think that they are frequently assuming that this is because of where a wine comes from; whereas I’m convinced it’s more to do with how the wine is made. Site can influence how a wine ages in so far as it influences must pH and grape maturity. So sites that produce low pH fruit that is also fully physiologically mature will produce more ageworthy wines than sites that don’t. But when you walk a few meters out of Gevrey-Chambertin AOC into Charmes-Chambertin, or from Puligny-Montrachet AOC into Bâtard-Montrachet, must chemistry doesn’t suddenly and decisively change. What often does change is how many producers tend to make the wines…

Do any producers make their different levels of wines differently? For instance, make the Bourgogne and village levels so they are more approachable younger, and make the cru levels wines with more structure and stuffing to go the distance? To me this would make sense, but it seems like there isn’t much evidence for this approach amongst the people that would know on this site.

[William_Kelley]

Do any producers make their different levels of wines differently? For instance, make the Bourgogne and village levels so they are more approachable younger, and make the cru levels wines with more structure and stuffing to go the distance? To me this would make sense, but it seems like there isn’t much evidence for this approach amongst the people that would know on this site.

I think most of them do. It is often the case that, the lower the appellation, the shorter the maceration; the less new oak; the shorter the élevage; and the lesser quality the cork. In the vineyards, conversely, the lower the appellation, the higher the yields (this is built into the AOC regulations) and, concomitantly, the less likely the vine genetics to be of high quality. Producers such as Leroy, who truly make everything the same way, are the exceptions to the rule. Other top producers will do their best with the lower appellations but, feeling that the wines lack the substance to sustain the same élevage as the grands crus, will use less oak, and often bottle them earlier.

[JBrochu]

Do any producers make their different levels of wines differently? For instance, make the Bourgogne and village levels so they are more approachable younger, and make the cru levels wines with more structure and stuffing to go the distance? To me this would make sense, but it seems like there isn’t much evidence for this approach amongst the people that would know on this site.

I think most of them do. It is often the case that, the lower the appellation, the shorter the maceration; the less new oak; the shorter the élevage; and the lesser quality the cork. In the vineyards, conversely, the lower the appellation, the higher the yields (this is built into the AOC regulations) and, concomitantly, the less likely the vine genetics to be of high quality. Producers such as Leroy, who truly make everything the same way, are the exceptions to the rule. Other top producers will do their best with the lower appellations but, feeling that the wines lack the substance to sustain the same élevage as the grands crus, will use less oak, and often bottle them earlier.

Thanks - this makes complete sense. But I guess I’m now confused by the conversation in the thread, because I thought it was heading toward a consensus that there isn’t too much difference in drinking windows between the different levels of Burgundy.

[Peter_Chiu]

a consensus that there isn’t too much difference in drinking windows between the different levels of Burgundy.

Hmm…there is no rule except exception because it is burgundy.

Take the Rousseau’s portfolio. They have too much g-crus holdings plus CSt.Jacques - which is one of their big 3. Here is their new oak regime. Normally is is 100% new oak for their Chambertin, CdBeze and CSt.Jacques, then less for the other g-crus with some of them without any new oak. Balance is the key for élevage and you need substance ( = low yield ) to go with the percentage of the new oak.

Could Rousseau use all 100% new oak in the all their G-crus with the need substance ( = low yield ) to élevage them ? Certainly …but what about the cost ? Would they need to raise the prices to have the same profit margin ? Would they be crowding the market share for their big 3 ?

Needless to say…100% new oak wines need more bottle age to achieve… their intended goal !! Hence Rousseau CStJ needs more bottle age then his CdlR from the same vintage year.

If your prefer AC is : CdlR, would like to buy Rousseau or Dujac ? The answer is : depend on your own personal preference. The vignerons know it and they charge us accordingly - and which I agree whole totally as they earned it.

[Keith_Levenberg]

But the thing is that aging a wine to maturity is a chemical process that’s about many more transformations than just digesting oak. Wine X may have its oak buried on day 1 and Wine Z may need 20 years to get there, so you might call Wine X more “ready to drink” but neither one is actually a mature wine. There aren’t many substitutes for time and patience when it comes to that.

[Marcu_Stanley]

“mature” is a subjective and not an objective judgement. Different people will have different tastes for when in a wine’s aging course they want to drink it. I think for Bordeaux it’s much more predictable when a wine is “shut down” in that the great majority of drinkers would not enjoy it. Burgundy has lots of phases and is less linear and predictable.

[Peter_Chiu]

But the thing is that aging a wine to maturity is a chemical process that’s about many more transformations than just digesting oak. Wine X may have its oak buried on day 1 and Wine Z may need 20 years to get there, so you might call Wine X more “ready to drink” but neither one is actually a mature wine. There aren’t many substitutes for time and patience when it comes to that.

Keith…totally agree. Too many factors and too many variable…

Jeremy gets it right :

The general rule of thumb is there is no rule of thumb. Drinking windows are completely useless. As Francois Audouze says “wine ages in a non linear way” and it is the truth.*

[JBrochu]

But the thing is that aging a wine to maturity is a chemical process that’s about many more transformations than just digesting oak. Wine X may have its oak buried on day 1 and Wine Z may need 20 years to get there, so you might call Wine X more “ready to drink” but neither one is actually a mature wine. There aren’t many substitutes for time and patience when it comes to that.

This helps me understand better what you meant with your earlier post. Thanks!

[Keith_Levenberg]

Also… in terms of pure drinkability as apart from maturity, many grand crus are actually going to get there sooner and give you a much broader window than 1er crus. With the richer material they (ought to) have they’ll have something to give when a 1er cru might be closed. Disclaimer: obviously subject to change based on site. Don’t try this with Corton.

[Claus_Jeppesen]

No rules of thumbs exist but for the major producers better wines: 20 - 40+ years.

[Peter_Chiu]

Claus…yes - specially if the major producers have many wines in their portfolio.

For my personal taste, I would lower the window to 10 -30 years …for the light vintage years - for the example : 2000, 2007 and 2017

[Joe_W_i_n_o_g_r_a_d]

Are we talking just reds here or whites too?

Setting aside premox risk, which I would like to believe is diminishing, is it the same story for whites or entirely different?

[brodie_thomson]

The general rule of thumb is there is no rule of thumb. Drinking windows are completely useless. As Francois Audouze says “wine ages in a non linear way” and it is the truth.

indeed!

[Marcu_Stanley]

Village wines and 1er crus don’t tend to take much less time to reach maturity than grand crus. If you want to drink mature Burgundy you’re looking at a minimum 20 years whether it’s Clos des Ursules or Clos de Beze. Alan’s “triple the critics” is probably about as good a rule of thumb as you’re gonna get.

This kind of claim seems odd to me. Everyone seems to agree that there are many, many 1990s Burgundies that are past their peak and on the the downslope. Those are wines that are well under 30 years old. So if it’s really a “minimum” of 20 years for Burgundy to reach maturity they must have a very short plateau of maturity!