I’ve opened up a couple Coudert Cuvee Tardive’s lately (2005/2006) and have just loved what I’ve found in bottle. Elegant, floral, earthy, and juicy.
Realistically, how long do folks tuck Cru Beaujolais away for?
I’ve had some that are 20+ years old and are fabulous. In French, they say Gamay “pinotes”, or becomes like Pinot Noir as it ages, which I find pretty accurate. Love those older Cru Bojos!
I prefer mine with some age. I start on my Lapierre Morgons at around 8-10 years old. I think I have one bottle left of the '99. I’ve also had some really old wines that were in great shape including several bottles of a 1947 Fleurie. Some bottles were better than others but none were shot.
The oldest I’ve had are some 2006’s and 2007’s recently, but I really liked them. For those that cellar, do you think that denser years like 2009 would be the better years to cellar? I recently ordered a case of well-priced 2009s and have quite a few left, so I will be able to watch these evolve.
I just pulled a couple of bottles of 2006 Tardive, having just finished off the last of the regular. I think 06 is a pretty forward vintage, though. I haven’t touched 2005 yet. I think they’re generally best at around 8-15 years. I just had my last 2002 last month. Maybe they will keep getting better, but I’m not sure.
I think Desvignes also takes a relatively long time to develop and have no clue what the Impénitents will do in terms of trajectory, either for itself or the resulting cuvées.
Foillard generally comes next, for me. The 2006’s turned out incredibly well. I recently had an 08 that was surprisingly advanced. But I have not tried 2005 yet. And then Lapierre, for me, develops a little quicker than Foillard. His 2005’s are beautiful now.
2009 was such a weird year that I have no idea how it will develop. I bet the Coudert Tardive will be great, but I am not sure about the time frame. I’ll start checking in a few years from now.
ETA - in terms of the super long haul, I think it depends on many factors, but winemaking has to be taken into account. I wonder how many of those long distance examples were made with carbonic or semi-carbonic macerations? If you want to keep something for a really long time, more than twenty years, I think Jadot is probably the best bet.
For a while some older Beaujolais was showing up on winebid. They were great. Gamay ages faster than Pinot so they had some real forest floor action going on even though they were only 10 years old or so.
Im aging some right now.
Matt,
I just had a '96 Château Thivin Côte de Brouilly a few months ago that was singing. It was uber-funky and earth-driven but I loved it. I think you’ll be even happier when you start to get to wines that are 12-15 years out.
I’ve had little aged Gamay but I did have a 1978 Mommessin Fleurie Domaine de la Presle last year that I actually found quite good. My only regret was not letting it breathe enough for fear of it falling over in the glass. After coming back to a small taste 30 minutes after opening it had completely shed the damp cellar nose it was sporting initially and became quite elegant with subtle fruit on the nose and palette. I’m opening another on Wednesday with a tasting group, I’ll report back on how it shows.
Very interesting discussion on all things Beaujolais - including cellaring - on a recent Grape Radio. It is worthwhile listening to it if you like Beaujolais.
Naive question here. Carbonic make it less age-worthy, right?
In general yes, but most top Cru Beaujolais producers (ie Gang of Four) do not use Carbonic maceration I believe.
There are those who use semi-carbonic maceration with lower O2-free fermentation times as well but the only one I know of is Foillard’s Beaujolais Nouveau bottling and not his cru wines.
Sipping on a 05’ Jacky Janodet Moulin a Vent.
This wine is at it’s peak, forrest floor, ash, dark crunchy fruit with chalky mineral laced notes at the end.
Delicious, but I don’t know if I would go any further.
I don’t keep as long as I should.
My oldest vintage in the cellar is only 2005. But there’s only so much cellar space…
What Michel said.
Best, Jim
Surely the great thing about the best versions of cru Beaujolais, as with Muscadet [Luneau-Papin, Ollivier, Bossard, Bregeon et al] and Sancerre & Pouilly [the Cotats, Boulay, Vatan, Thomas-Labaille, Bourgeois, Crochet, Pinard, Mellot, Vacheron, Dagueneau et al] is that one can drink them relatively young, middle aged and somewhat older.
I have had genuinely old but not ancient Beaujolais e.g. some MaVs and Morgons at almost 20 years of age but only because they got lost in the cellar and most are consumed between 3 and 12 years of age with [mainly] wines like Jadot’s single vineyard Chateau des Jacques wines [usually Rochegres and Grand Carquelin] getting beyond that - currently the last bottles of 2002 Rochegres which IMO are beginning to tail off.
Likewise Muscadet e.g. currently a still great Luneau-Papin 2002 Le ‘L’ d’Or and Sancerre, a Henri Bourgeois 1999.
As with all things, tastes vary and I, for the 3 types of wine I have mentioned, tend to find most enjoyment in that 3-12, young to middle-aged year slot.
However I know others who generally like such wines only in their youth as well as those who don’t even consider opening their e.g. Cotats or Dagueneaus until they are well over 10.
At my age I am glad I can enjoy them at virtually any stage.
Interestingly I find that the top Loire producers [we stay every year for 1-2 weeks] somewhat amused at the idea that their wines are aged to the extent that some are. Not that they do not believe they can age well but that they are not made with keeping them for 10+ years as a necessary objective. I haven’t discussed that with the Beaujolais producers but some, particularly those who make their wines the Burgundian way like Jadot certainly indicate some will keep for 10-20 years.
Aged Beaujolais. Different, not better. Good to have young and older IMO.
I too recently had a '96 Thivin. No funkiness, resolved, smooth, complex. Mind expanding in terms of what can come with age. If I had the space and time, I’d be tucking away a 6 pack a year. Your budget would not even flinch, and you’d be soooo happy in 15-18 years.
I don’t know about that. I have seen some impressive transformations.
Yeah, I’d have to agree. Taste them blind, not knowing they’re Beaujolais.
Naive question here. Carbonic make it less age-worthy, right?
Two things.
First, don’t associate carbonic maceration only with Beaujolais. It’s used all over the world. It helps preserve a bright fruit flavor and color. It’s used for Syrah, Tempranillo, and many other grapes.
Second, not all Beaujolais is made via carbonic maceration. Again, that’s a technique used in many areas and in Beaujolais it was used to produce a vibrant, fruity wine to drink right away. But many producers make Gamay the same way people make Pinot Noir and Syrah, and those tend to be the wines you age.
As far as making a wine less age-worthy, I don’t think that’s always true. But because the wines made via carbonic maceration are lower in tannins and higher in fruit, it’s a good way to make wines for early consumption.
I love Jay’s and Nigel’s posts.
I feel like I often neglect cellaring affordable wines, even though they often show well, and differently, through a long evolutionary curve. I am glad to have succeeded at losing some of them lately, Cru Beaujolais included, largely from “traditional” producers from earlier vintages.