2014 Chablis is amazing. I was referring to things like 2021 Bordeaux, which is often referred to as a “classic” vintage, even though it really is just crap.
Talking about 2014 in 2026 is not that relevant today, is it? A lot has changed since then. And that is the point.
Well, we were actually talking about 2021 Chablis, and how some producers were able to make “classic” Chablis in this difficult year. 14 and 17 were thrown in as examples of classic chablis, (which doesn’t BTW mean lean watery swill, as implied here and there in this thread).
But I agree, the real question is what happens from here. I personally don’t feel that Chablis can be manipulated successfully to fuel a more modern Chablis palate that is more Cote de Beaune-like, but I guess we will see. There are producers that are able to steer their style somewhat in various vintages successfully and maintain a Chablis feel–Wm Fevre I think is one of the best at this.
2 Likes
The discussion seems to be circling around my original post.
No argument that 2014 is generally (“there are no great vintages, only great bottles”) a great vintage for all white Burgundy.
While I love and drink a lot of Chablis, a majority of it is from Duplessis, the grower I represented for 40 years. My comments do not come from as broad a perspective as I would like.
Yes, it’s gotten warmer and many Chablis no longer have the cut and vivacity that made the wines famous. But there are still plenty of fine and great ones out there, many at prices that are not daunting to most of the people that frequent this board.
I tend to like ripe wines, but nowadays in Chablis I look for the less ripe vintages. Very broadly speaking, I prefer 2021 to 2020 or 2022. 2021 reminds me of 2013, which is a compliment. And quite a few wines with the Chablis and Petit Chablis Appellations that were often too thin and painfully acidic can be wonderful bargains today.
2 Likes
You bought two wines from producers I have never heard of. Maybe they are great, but I have no idea and cannot begin to help you with whether you just did not like the wines from these producers or would dislike all Chablis.
Getting beyond the super-expensive Chablis like Raveneau, some of my favorite Chablis producers are Moreau-Naudet, Christian Moreau, and Samuel Billaud. A producer whose wines I have not had in a while but I think of as a standard for classic Chablis is Louis Michel.
Agree on Louis Michel except see other threads about some prem-ox (which I have not encountered, yet) and a very ‘easy’ 2023.basic Chablis that has no sense of Chablis ( I’ve had a couple of bottles now, I bought six unfortunately; it’s a decent enough basic chardonnay at an indecent price).
The 2023 LM Chablis Village is an outlier. I think they messed up on this one. I’m not gonna use empyreumatic again 
, but it has a smoky, burned flavor that ruins it for me.
This however:
Has the regular seaside nose with lemon and unripe peaches. The palate is showing a little bit of fat and medium acidity (a little less acidity than some past ones) but good saline finish with a tad of bitterness bringing a lot of freshness. Totally enjoyable.
1 Like
FWIW, Neal Martin on Vinous is currently writing up his yearly Chablis review, and promises to address the status of Chablis in 2025. Don’t know if this will be a sentence, a paragraph, a section, or what. Not sure when this comes out, and not sure how many here subscribe, but I tend to find his input helpful.
4 Likes
Did not get the empyreumatic notes , just a very easy almost flabby wine. Let’s hope I stumble over the 2022. Until current price levels I rarely bought base Chablis, almost all 1er Cru. Now I’m also fishing in shallower waters with mixed results.
Now, for analysis without context! It’s a pretty good look - without calling out any particular producers. Being the winemaker that I am, wanted to see how analysis translates to what in the glass. I think these numbers, knowing the producer and the style, show pretty dang close, IMO. The high VA a more natural producer, the lower alcohols speak to cooler vintages, the higher residual sugar pointing towards more difficult fermentation conditions. Luckily we can all taste what we feel in the glass - these numbers just support it for me!
| Appellation | Level | Vintage | Alcohol | mL | GF | pH | TA | TSO2 | FSO2 | VA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chablis | Grand Cru | 2018 | 13.3 | 0.02 | 0.69 | 3.3 | 6.41 | 75 | 17 | 0.29 |
| Chablis | Grand Cru | 2019 | 13.71 | 0.02 | 2.41 | 3.46 | 5.02 | 96 | 8 | 0.6 |
| Chablis | Grand Cru | 2021 | 12.26 | 0.11 | 0.35 | 3.47 | 5.87 | 79 | 2 | 0.4 |
| Chablis | Grand Cru | 2021 | 12.18 | 0.16 | 1.11 | 3.28 | 6.14 | 121 | 17 | 0.46 |
| Chablis | Grand Cru | 2011 | 13.07 | 0.14 | 0.66 | 3.09 | 6.74 | 29 | 4 | 0.34 |
| Chablis | Premier Cru | 2019 | 13.86 | 0.01 | 2.36 | 3.28 | 6.96 | 46 | 1 | 1.1 |
| Chablis | Premier Cru | 2021 | 12.39 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 3.35 | 6.01 | 85 | 14 | 0.24 |
| Chablis | Premier Cru | 2022 | 13.1 | 0.1 | 1.22 | 3.23 | 5.9 | 66 | 12 | 0.3 |
| Chablis | Premier Cru | 2010 | 12.91 | 0.11 | 0.93 | 3.36 | 6.23 | 75 | 8 | 0.29 |
| Chablis | Village | 2019 | 12.96 | 2.01 | 0.55 | 3.47 | 6.39 | 90 | 26 | |
| Chablis | Village | 2021 | 12.75 | 0.15 | 1.07 | 3.36 | 6.2 | 79 | 12 | 0.29 |
| Chablis | Village | 2021 | 12.8 | 0.01 | 2.46 | 3.44 | 6.23 | 45 | 6 | 0.9 |
| Chablis | Village | 2022 | 12.35 | 0.01 | 1.47 | 3.32 | 5.89 | 56 | 9 | 0.29 |
| Chablis | Village | 2018 | 14.27 | 0.02 | 1.77 | 3.35 | 5.58 | 25 | 0 | 0.61 |
| Chablis | Village | 2022 | 12.53 | 0.06 | 2.04 | 3.27 | 4.92 | 55 | 3 | 0.23 |
| Chablis | Village | 2020 | 12.98 | 0.07 | 0.68 | 3.44 | 5.05 | 77 | 18 | 0.39 |
4 Likes
this is pretty cool-- what is the source of the data? And is this meant to be data of all producers, collected by a governing body? (which doesn’t really exist in U.S. AVAs.)
And is GF Glucose/fructose (residual sugar)? the data seem high for RS, right?
1 Like
<3 g/l is high?
I wondered this myself. They sound like pretty standard numbers to me.
Congrats to the producer who made a 2018 GC with 13.3 alc and 3.3pH
1 Like
I too would love to know the source of these numbers. Please advise.
my Oregon BDNs and chardonnay are typically 0.2 to 0.3 g/L … I just assumed, especially Chablis, would indeed be in this range. It is generally accepted that >2 is perceptible (sweetness), so yes I was surprised to see a few of these on a Chablis chart. (Jackson, R., Wine Tasting, A Professional Handbook, 2009, Elsevier, p.155)
I’ve said it before - and will probably need to say it again. - but ‘perceptible sweetness’ is subjective, not objective. Those of you who are ‘bitter averse’ will tend to find things sweeter only at higher RS levels . . .
1 Like
The rule of thumb for non-wine people used to be 0.5% (5g/l). That’s sugar in water, no balancing acidity.
1 Like
I think a big variable in finished r/s is yeast choice (native [which aren’t as efficient] vs. lab yeasts, and the lab yeasts chosen if you’re using them), nutrient load (is a producer adding some sort of fermentation aid, and wine pH. I think the latter two things work in concert with each other quite a bit.
Your finished numbers (0.2-0.3) seem on the low side of what I’ve observed/seen in the winery and across the valley–I certainly think that there are plenty of wines across the with more r.s. that still present as dry. Most of my wines finish below 1g/l but even the other day I had to send a wine to the lab because it tasted dry (and was at -2brix) and I needed to double check if it was ready for sulfur/bottling (not quite–it was at 1.9).
(There’s a good thread on r.s. in Morgen Long here if anyone wants to read it edit: and also a bit on his '16s here)
I don’t think it makes sense to posit an r.s. number for perceptible sweetness independent of acid levels and bitterness in a wine. In Germany, depending on acid levels, 8-10g/l is the limit for trocken wines, and there are plenty of “dry-tasting” bottles with more r/s than that. I think there are plenty of Cabs and Zins that have more than 2 g/l r.s. due to being picked quite ripe, but most of the time, we just think “fruit” when we taste them.
5 Likes
This indeed. When I was ITB, I saw a lot of technical analyses for producers we represented. There were many wines that had RS somewhere between 1 and 3 g/l - including many producers making wines in a very hands-off fashion, employing biodynamic practices, etc.
0.2 to 0.3 g/l isn’t unheard of, but definitely on the low side of things, based on the numbers I’ve seen.
2 Likes