GRANDS CRUS vs. Premier Crus - what´s the difference?

[Eric_Egan]

Some good points made above with regards to the degree to which the winemaker lavishes attention on their GC wines over their wines from lower classifications - though the top winemakers out a lot of care into their more basic wines as well.

In general though, I would say I pretty much ignore the classifications in Burgundy. There are a few GC sites that are a step above all others in the region (RC, Romanee, La Tache, Richebourg, Musigny, Chambertin and Clos de Beze) but there are also equally good PC sites (Cros Parentoux, parts of Suchots, Malconsors, Beaux Monts, Amoureuses, CSJ); there are also some pretty uneven GC (Clos de Vougeot, Charmes (and other) Chambertin - some say Echezeaux, though I think this is generally a very good site, perhaps with some less good producers). In my experience, there are PC sites in Volnay that are superior to parts of Corton GC, and PC sites in Chablis that are equal to, or better, than parts of the GC Chablis vineyards. With regards to village wines, it is rare that you can confuse these with the very best GC but it happens; I had a '66 Gevrey-Chambertin a few weeks ago that I thought was Clos de Beze (of course it might have been declassified GC). It was outstanding - though I would never have guessed; it was an unknown negociant bottling (I can’t remember which off the top of my head). The 1983 Jadot Puligny-Montrachet can hold its own with most White GC Burgundy I’ve had (I’ve had a case of this stupidly good village wine over the last five years - no idea what the story behind it is but it’s amazing).

The morale is, I think, that there is no short-cut for understanding how this all fits together; only in-depth knowledge and a lot of experimentation. And the luck if the draw.

[Rory_K]

As said above, in the past grand crus were more consistently top quality because of ripeness, as even in cold vintages the micro-climates and sun exposure gave them a leg up, with global warming I think the playing field has leveled to a degree (and that is a big generalization).

[Rauno_E_NZ]

Mouthfeel, layers and intensity are the markers for me. Of course, I hardly ever guess correctly . Particularly with climate change, I think that (alongside technological advances) it is now far easier to make great, ripe wines from lesser terroirs than GCs. I’m also with the crowd re “self-fulfilling prophecy”. The producers that lavish GC treatment on lesser sites invariably make wines that can be better than GCs from other producers - Roulot, Coche, Leroy and Rousseau, but probably a bunch of others too.

[brodie_thomson]

@Robert Sand

This is not really MY question (I already have my opinion) but it´s simply to initiate a discussion about this matter:

We all know that GRANDS CRUS are more expensive, more desirable - also much rarer - and (should be) usually of a higher quality than Premier Crus or Village wines.
(I know that not all and always really are “better” …)

What are these qualities a GRAND CRU should have in comparison to a Premier cru or a Village wine?
More powerful? That´s neither always the case nor is it enough. Right?

Is the difference of 2 (3 - 4- 5 … ) times the price of a Premier cru really justified - or only an effect of supply and demand?

Hi Robert, if you really wanted to answer this question for yourself (and perhaps some friends to manage the cost!), I would recommend doing the following: Have a mini horizontal tasting to see for yourself;

Dujac: Morey St Denis Villages → Morey St Dennis 1er Cru → Clos de la Roche
Hudelot -Noellat: Vosne Romanee Villages → VR Les Suchots → VR Malconsorts → Richebourg or Romanee St Vivant
Mugnier: Chambolle Musigny Villages → CM Les Fuees → CM Les Amoureuses → Musigny
Rousseau: Gevry Chambertin Villages → GC Les Cazetiers → GC Clos St Jacques → Chambertin or Clos de Beze

By doing a horizontal tasting thru the village to GC line up of a single maker, you take vintage variation and also wine maker style differences (well mostly!) out of the equation. I think this is the best way to address the issue and would be very enlightening. This was you should be able to get an definitive answer (for your own taste preferences that is). I would recommend 2007 as they are very open right now.

Now there are plenty of other makers who are not so expensive but the Domaines listed above are recognised to be the best or among the best in the relevant village. You could then decide for yourself whether the GCs are that much better and whether they are “worth” the higher prices or not.

Some fun tasting opportunities

Brodie

[Kevin_G]

@Marcus Stanley

What I wonder is how much of the GC/PC/Village quality difference is really about the site and how much is about the investment into the grapes and winemaking. The higher the site classification the more you have to pay for the grapes and the higher a price you can sell them for. It therefore makes good economic sense to invest more in making the higher classifications. But are there still lesser known lower-ranking, even villages-type, locations in Burgundy where the right producer could develop make great wines? E.g. think of the Rousseau village Gevrey-Chambertin, haven’t had it and don’t know how much is just about the producer name, but it seems to be respected on line with a good premier cru. You would think that after all these centuries all the quality to be milked out of Burgundy locations would be known, but it seems like the combination of climate change + a revolution in winemaking resources and knowledge just since the '80s means that there may still be possibilities.

Interesting discussion. This is what Adam Smith would post if he were around today (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 11):

The vine is more affected by the difference of soils than any other fruit tree. From some it derives a flavour which no culture or management can equal, it is supposed, upon any other. This flavour, real or imaginary, is sometimes peculiar to the produce of a few vineyards; sometimes it extends through the greater part of a small district, and sometimes through a considerable part of a large province. The whole quantity of such wines that is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, or the demand of those who would be willing to pay the whole rent, profit, and wages, necessary for preparing and bringing them thither, according to the ordinary rate, or according to the rate at which they are paid in common vineyards. The whole quantity, therefore, can be disposed of to those who are willing to pay more, which necessarily raises the price above that of common wine. The difference is greater or less according as the fashionableness and scarcity of the wine render the competition of the buyers more or less eager. Whatever it be, the greater part of it goes to the rent of the landlord. For though such vineyards are in general more carefully cultivated than most others, the high price of the wine seems to be not so much the effect as the cause of this careful cultivation. In so valuable a produce the loss occasioned by negligence is so great as to force even the most careless to attention. A small part of this high price, therefore, is sufficient to pay the wages of the extraordinary labour bestowed upon their cultivation, and the profits of the extraordinary stock which puts that labour into motion.

[Gerhard_P]

@Marcus Dean

Depending what year the Jayer was it could have had a large percentage of Cros Parantoux in it.

1987 - no Cros Parantoux!

[GregT]

Lichine owned and produced wine from both Burgundy and Bordeaux. He mentions that specifically in his book. He was, by no means, isolating French wine to Bordeaux and was a booster of multiple regions of French wine, though he seemed to have a poor opinion of wines from the Languedoc. And multiple books suggested wine pairings far, far, far before the 1970’s, including the aforementioned 1953 version of Wines of France.

Having read about a hundred of Francois Audouze’s reports of Bordeaux and Burgundy wines from the late 19th Century through the 1950’s, I am fairly sure that few of them would be mistaken for roses, and the few that I’ve had with 60-70+ years of them are clearly not pink either.

Lichine was a negociant and vineyard owner. Obviously he knew wine from various regions. And, in accordance with the thinking of his day, he thought the serious French wines were Burgundy and Bordeaux. And sixty to seventy years ago is not that long ago - the Plantagenets were drinking the wine in the 1400s and while nobody knows, the expectation is that the wines were maybe around 8 percent alcohol.

For your theory to hold, Pinot Noir once produced big, dark wines in a relatively cool region but over the past few years has ceased to do so. None of your quotes supports that however. They only show that those folks liked wine.

The fact that people drank it, and with meat, has nothing at all to do with its weight. The Plantagenets drank it in the 1300s and 1400s. That doesn’t mean it was dark.

Jefferson wrote about it. Volnay was produced earliest and was made in a very light style, but was also the cheapest of the red Burgundies so became his favorite. Writing in 1949, specifically about Bordeaux and Burgundy, Pitte, a French academic and wine writer said: “The Bordelais are annoyed by the subtle smells of the great Pinots, by their color, which is often less bold than the reds of the Gironde, and by the fact that these wines nonetheless manage to overwhelm the head and the senses with lighthearted ease.”

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Burgundies were bold, dark wines, mostly because the region and the grape don’t support that. But then, maybe they were in fact making dark big reds from a relatively thin-skinned grape in a cool region for centuries until they forgot how . . .

[Robert_Sand]

So far very few here have gotten the real point – a good number of answers discuss periphere issues only – or are unnecessarily agressive.

IMO the best answers:
(you may decide yourself)

@Odd Rydland

They are not always more complex, but balance and length will usually be superior. And this is Burgundy, so there will be lots of exceptions.

@NoahR

I agree that “weight” and “power” shouldn’t be considered indicators of quality for Burgundy. Maybe “richness” and “intensity of flavor” and “depth” would be better descriptors and the best Burgundies have these with an accompanying finesse and lightness on their feet…

@Matthew King

For me, it’s about superior mouthfeel/texture coupled with length and persistence. Like cashmere vs. merino wool … both nice but just something extra

@Gerhard P.

For me a real Grand Cru should have the following qualities:

1. a distinctive (unique) character
2. great finesse, complexity and depth
3. a superior intensity and length (to a 1er cru)
4. all presented with fine balance
5. superior ageworthy

I know that´s not always the case with wines designated Grand Cru …

@Rauno E (NZ)

Mouthfeel, layers and intensity are the markers for me. Of course, I hardly ever guess correctly . Particularly with climate change, I think that (alongside technological advances) it is now far easier to make great, ripe wines from lesser terroirs than GCs.

and perhaps

@alan weinberg

for me it’s about terroir in the hands of a great producer. Bourgogne may be excellent but it doesn’t thrill.

---

@brodie thomson

Hi Robert, if you really wanted to answer this question for yourself (and perhaps some friends to manage the cost!), I would recommend doing the following: Have a mini horizontal tasting to see for yourself;

Dujac: Morey St Denis Villages → Morey St Dennis 1er Cru → Clos de la Roche
Hudelot -Noellat: Vosne Romanee Villages → VR Les Suchots → VR Malconsorts → Richebourg or Romanee St Vivant
Mugnier: Chambolle Musigny Villages → CM Les Fuees → CM Les Amoureuses → Musigny
Rousseau: Gevry Chambertin Villages → GC Les Cazetiers → GC Clos St Jacques → Chambertin or Clos de Beze
Some fun tasting opportunities

Brodie

Brodie,
do you really think I have not done or attended similar tastings several times?
I wrote I have already MY opinion - so your (good) advice might be for someone else.

I´m on this forum quite irregularily, and I now see again that it is actually very hard to initiate a real objective discussion without gaining personal insults – a great pity!

[Otto_Forsberg]

@GregT

Lichine owned and produced wine from both Burgundy and Bordeaux. He mentions that specifically in his book. He was, by no means, isolating French wine to Bordeaux and was a booster of multiple regions of French wine, though he seemed to have a poor opinion of wines from the Languedoc. And multiple books suggested wine pairings far, far, far before the 1970’s, including the aforementioned 1953 version of Wines of France.

Having read about a hundred of Francois Audouze’s reports of Bordeaux and Burgundy wines from the late 19th Century through the 1950’s, I am fairly sure that few of them would be mistaken for roses, and the few that I’ve had with 60-70+ years of them are clearly not pink either.

Lichine was a negociant and vineyard owner. Obviously he knew wine from various regions. And, in accordance with the thinking of his day, he thought the serious French wines were Burgundy and Bordeaux. And sixty to seventy years ago is not that long ago - the Plantagenets were drinking the wine in the 1400s and while nobody knows, the expectation is that the wines were maybe around 8 percent alcohol.

For your theory to hold, Pinot Noir once produced big, dark wines in a relatively cool region but over the past few years has ceased to do so. None of your quotes supports that however. They only show that those folks liked wine.

The fact that people drank it, and with meat, has nothing at all to do with its weight. The Plantagenets drank it in the 1300s and 1400s. That doesn’t mean it was dark.

Jefferson wrote about it. Volnay was produced earliest and was made in a very light style, but was also the cheapest of the red Burgundies so became his favorite. Writing in 1949, specifically about Bordeaux and Burgundy, Pitte, a French academic and wine writer said: “The Bordelais are annoyed by the subtle smells of the great Pinots, by their color, which is often less bold than the reds of the Gironde, and by the fact that these wines nonetheless manage to overwhelm the head and the senses with lighthearted ease.”

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Burgundies were bold, dark wines, mostly because the region and the grape don’t support that. But then, maybe they were in fact making dark big reds from a relatively thin-skinned grape in a cool region for centuries until they forgot how . . .

From what I’ve understood this difference / discrepancy between historical Bordeaux and Bourgogne stems from how they had more money and know-how to make more sophisticated wines in Bordeaux, whereas in Bourgogne the wines were made in very rustic methods, often treating the grapes heavy-handedly and making red wines with very over-extracted character. Especially when from cooler years, the red Burgundies could show a lot tougher character with high acidity and heavily extracted tannins in comparison to the cold and tough, but often somewhat riper and more polished Bordeaux wines. Historically only the best Domaines made delicate wines with remarkable harmony and elegance, whereas most of the producers were farmers who had no scientific know-how, just what knowledge their father had passed on to them.

So the difference here isn’t that much about big body / ripeness, but instead the overall toughness and structure of the wines.

[Marcu_Stanley]

@Kevin G.

@Marcus Stanley

What I wonder is how much of the GC/PC/Village quality difference is really about the site and how much is about the investment into the grapes and winemaking. The higher the site classification the more you have to pay for the grapes and the higher a price you can sell them for. It therefore makes good economic sense to invest more in making the higher classifications. But are there still lesser known lower-ranking, even villages-type, locations in Burgundy where the right producer could develop make great wines? E.g. think of the Rousseau village Gevrey-Chambertin, haven’t had it and don’t know how much is just about the producer name, but it seems to be respected on line with a good premier cru. You would think that after all these centuries all the quality to be milked out of Burgundy locations would be known, but it seems like the combination of climate change + a revolution in winemaking resources and knowledge just since the '80s means that there may still be possibilities.

Interesting discussion. This is what Adam Smith would post if he were around today (Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 11):

The vine is more affected by the difference of soils than any other fruit tree. From some it derives a flavour which no culture or management can equal, it is supposed, upon any other. This flavour, real or imaginary, is sometimes peculiar to the produce of a few vineyards; sometimes it extends through the greater part of a small district, and sometimes through a considerable part of a large province. The whole quantity of such wines that is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, or the demand of those who would be willing to pay the whole rent, profit, and wages, necessary for preparing and bringing them thither, according to the ordinary rate, or according to the rate at which they are paid in common vineyards. The whole quantity, therefore, can be disposed of to those who are willing to pay more, which necessarily raises the price above that of common wine. The difference is greater or less according as the fashionableness and scarcity of the wine render the competition of the buyers more or less eager. Whatever it be, the greater part of it goes to the rent of the landlord. For though such vineyards are in general more carefully cultivated than most others, the high price of the wine seems to be not so much the effect as the cause of this careful cultivation. In so valuable a produce the loss occasioned by negligence is so great as to force even the most careless to attention. A small part of this high price, therefore, is sufficient to pay the wages of the extraordinary labour bestowed upon their cultivation, and the profits of the extraordinary stock which puts that labour into motion.

ha ha ha – amazing, great find! It takes genius to produce a dead-on reply to a forum post over 200 years before the internet was even invented!

I guess given what the price of Burgundy is doing you could see the greater part of wine prices capitalized into the land value while still leaving a lot of $$$ to boost land value and hence incentive to cultivate at the village/premier level as well.

[Howard_Cooper]

@brodie thomson

@Robert Sand

This is not really MY question (I already have my opinion) but it´s simply to initiate a discussion about this matter:

We all know that GRANDS CRUS are more expensive, more desirable - also much rarer - and (should be) usually of a higher quality than Premier Crus or Village wines.
(I know that not all and always really are “better” …)

What are these qualities a GRAND CRU should have in comparison to a Premier cru or a Village wine?
More powerful? That´s neither always the case nor is it enough. Right?

Is the difference of 2 (3 - 4- 5 … ) times the price of a Premier cru really justified - or only an effect of supply and demand?

Hi Robert, if you really wanted to answer this question for yourself (and perhaps some friends to manage the cost!), I would recommend doing the following: Have a mini horizontal tasting to see for yourself;

Dujac: Morey St Denis Villages → Morey St Dennis 1er Cru → Clos de la Roche
Hudelot -Noellat: Vosne Romanee Villages → VR Les Suchots → VR Malconsorts → Richebourg or Romanee St Vivant
Mugnier: Chambolle Musigny Villages → CM Les Fuees → CM Les Amoureuses → Musigny
Rousseau: Gevry Chambertin Villages → GC Les Cazetiers → GC Clos St Jacques → Chambertin or Clos de Beze

By doing a horizontal tasting thru the village to GC line up of a single maker, you take vintage variation and also wine maker style differences (well mostly!) out of the equation. I think this is the best way to address the issue and would be very enlightening. This was you should be able to get an definitive answer (for your own taste preferences that is). I would recommend 2007 as they are very open right now.

Now there are plenty of other makers who are not so expensive but the Domaines listed above are recognised to be the best or among the best in the relevant village. You could then decide for yourself whether the GCs are that much better and whether they are “worth” the higher prices or not.

Some fun tasting opportunities

Brodie

Excellent idea and I like your vintage choice of 2007 with one exception. As I understand it, Charles Van Canneyt started in 2008 as the new generation of family running Hudelot-Noellat. For my palate, he has upgraded significantly the wines of HN. So, I might do 2010 from HN to get wines he made.

[James_Billy]

Burgundy. It’s complicated. In theory it’s all about terroirs. But people say it’s not, it’s about producer. Or even vintage.

But Burgundy. It’s complicated. It’s all of the above. Sometimes not. There’s just no one size fits all answer. Well, not generally.

I’ve been to producers almost never mentioned on here. That should mean they are not worthy. Not worth discussing. Producer is everything, right?

Well, we taste through the barrels. Yada, yada, yada. This producer isn’t much good. But, wait there. Grand Cru. What’s this going to be like? Answer: fantastic. Terroirs!

Moral: lesser producers can f up good dirt, but not necessarily. Not always.

Taste, taste, taste!

[Robert_Sand]

@James Billy

Burgundy. It’s complicated. In theory it’s all about terroirs. But people say it’s not, it’s about producer. Or even vintage.

But Burgundy. It’s complicated. It’s all of the above. Sometimes not. There’s just no one size fits all answer. Well, not generally.

I’ve been to producers almost never mentioned on here. That should mean they are not worthy. Not worth discussing. Producer is everything, right?

Well, we taste through the barrels. Yada, yada, yada. This producer isn’t much good. But, wait there. Grand Cru. What’s this going to be like? Answer: fantastic. Terroirs!

Moral: lesser producers can f up good dirt, but not necessarily. Not always.

Taste, taste, taste!

This is a funny reply with a lot of true points, but not really an answer to my question.

MY opinion:
The difference between (real, fine) Grand Crus and Premier Crus:
more complexity, more finesse, more intensity -
something even a fine winemaker cannot get out of the usual Premier Cru sites.
But there are some Premier Crus with the potential to produce Grand Cru wines (most mentioned above),
and some GCs rarely living up to their classification.

(but that is another issue)

[DougS]

It’s funny (but not at all surprising ) how many responses, including some condescending ones, do not answer or even really address the question. I think this sums it up nicely:

@Gerhard P.

For me a real Grand Cru should have the following qualities:

1. a distinctive (unique) character
2. great finesse, complexity and depth
3. a superior intensity and length (to a 1er cru)
4. all presented with fine balance
5. superior ageworthy

I know that´s not always the case with wines designated Grand Cru …

The only other thing that I think is important to mention is that Grand Cru wines usually see and show more new oak than Premier Cru. I know there are exceptions, but this is usually the case.

[k_s_h_i_n]

@Frank Drew

Of the relative handful of both red and white Grand Crus I’ve had, in general the whites have given me more satisfaction, they’ve lived up to their category more than the reds in terms of my expectations. I’m not putting that out as a rule, just my experience.

+1, the whites are pretty clear, especially Montrachets. Charmes, CV, Echezeaux and all Cortons are the second tier GCs in general where Amoureuses, CSJ, Beaux Monts, Brulees, Aux Malconsorts, Gaudichots, Cros Parantoux, Aux Reignots and Les Petits Monts by the top producers can often surpass some of the GC wines.

[Eric_Egan]

@Robert Sand

MY opinion:
The difference between (real, fine) Grand Crus and Premier Crus:
more complexity, more finesse, more intensity -

That’s just the difference between a good and a great wine. Generalising to this being the difference between GC and PC is simplistic. You can find as many situations in which this does not apply, as where it does.

[A_So]

@Doug Schulman

It’s funny (but not at all surprising ) how many responses, including some condescending ones, do not answer or even really address the question. I think this sums it up nicely:

@Gerhard P.

For me a real Grand Cru should have the following qualities:

1. a distinctive (unique) character
2. great finesse, complexity and depth
3. a superior intensity and length (to a 1er cru)
4. all presented with fine balance
5. superior ageworthy

I know that´s not always the case with wines designated Grand Cru …

Gerhard’s quote does not answer the question because of the operative word “real”. To answer OP’s question, that would have to apply to all GCs and not PCs; a patently false assertion, which Gerhard admits to as well.

Does a random negociant Charmes-Chambertin count as a real GC? I’d say so. It’s probably also crap wine.

The fact is that the only distinction between any GC and any PC is a legal one.

[Robert_Sand]

@Eric Egan

@Robert Sand

MY opinion:
The difference between (real, fine) Grand Crus and Premier Crus:
more complexity, more finesse, more intensity -

That’s just the difference between a good and a great wine. Generalising to this being the difference between GC and PC is simplistic. You can find as many situations in which this does not apply, as where it does.

That´s simply opportunistic … and a bit cowardy without delivering an own definition yourself.

That’s just the difference between a good and a great wine.

What else should it be?
A Grand Cru should be of a superior quality compared to a PC …

My question was how we can recognise this superior quality, which details are the points to sum up to a greater wine.

@A. So

@Doug Schulman

It’s funny (but not at all surprising ) how many responses, including some condescending ones, do not answer or even really address the question. I think this sums it up nicely:

@Gerhard P.

For me a real Grand Cru should have the following qualities:

1. a distinctive (unique) character
2. great finesse, complexity and depth
3. a superior intensity and length (to a 1er cru)
4. all presented with fine balance
5. superior ageworthy

I know that´s not always the case with wines designated Grand Cru …

Gerhard’s quote does not answer the question because of the operative word “real”. To answer OP’s question, that would have to apply to all GCs and not PCs; a patently false assertion, which Gerhard admits to as well.

Does a random negociant Charmes-Chambertin count as a real GC? I’d say so. It’s probably also crap wine.

The fact is that the only distinction between any GC and any PC is a legal one.

I think you still misunderstood my question. Gerhards definition is quite spot on.
The question is not a legal one (because that´s usually on the label), but a question of quality.

Does a random negociant Charmes-Chambertin count as a real GC? I’d say so. It’s probably also crap wine.

It´s legally a GC, but qualitywise not on this level, maybe crap.

Again: what qualities should a Burgundy wine have to be of Grand Cru level (qualitywise) -
(no matter if a GC, a PC or lower classification).

It is also very clear that not all GC bottlings have these qualities - I think that´s what Gerhard meant with “real” -
and that in some cases a lower level wine can own such qualities … so that it is OF GRAND CRU QUALITY.

(please apologise my English, it´s not my mother tongue)

[Jurgen_Steinke]

William gave the right answer, IMO. A Grand Cru site has the potential to produce great wine. Because the terroir is of superior quality. But we talk about potential. The winemaker must be able to use the full potential. Is this always the case? No. Is a Grand Cru site always way superior? Not necessarily. In ripe vintages its possible to harvest very good fruit even from village terroirs. As so often in the field of wine – things are pretty complicated.

It would be interesting to organize a blind tasting. 18 wines from 2002 vintage. 6 Appellation village, 6 Premiers Crus and 6 Grands Crus. 10 Burgundy lovers. They should identify which level the wines in question are. I think it would be interesting to see the results.

[Gerhard_P]

@Jürgen Steinke

William gave the right answer, IMO. A Grand Cru site has the potential to produce great wine. Because the terroir is of superior quality. But we talk about potential. The winemaker must be able to use the full potential. Is this always the case? No. Is a Grand Cru site always way superior? Not necessarily. In ripe vintages its possible to harvest very good fruit even from village terroirs. As so often in the field of wine – things are pretty complicated.

It would be interesting to organize a blind tasting. 18 wines from 2002 vintage. 6 Appellation village, 6 Premiers Crus and 6 Grands Crus. 10 Burgundy lovers. They should identify which level the wines in question are. I think it would be interesting to see the results.

Jürgen,
everything´s true what you wrote - but it´s nevertheless not the point how I understood Robert´s question.

The point is: what qualities should a wine have to be of real Grand Cru level? (no matter if legally Grand Cru or lower).
My answer (above) was clear: distinctive character, superior complexity, finesse, intensity, balance, ageworthy.

@Jürgen Steinke

… In ripe vintages its possible to harvest very good fruit even from village terroirs. …

Yes, very good fruit … but with less character, complexity and finesse if from lesser terroir. Grapes can have the same brix, ph and all other analytical qualities, but when turned into wine they can be nevertheless very very different, mostly regarding character and complexity.
That´s the point of the Burgundy hierarchy - in the middle slope where the Grands crus usually are situated the chalky marl subsoil of Jura ages comes closest to the surface, while lower and higher sites have simpler soil like clay, sand or gravel etc.
(very simply put).
The best Premier Cru sites are also of similar elevation.
I admit that with golbal warming some differences have become less pronounced because lesser sites still can ripen perfectly (which was not the case 100+ years ago). But the “simple” soil still remains.

Your suggestion of tasting 18 wines is interesting, but I´ve often done similar comparisons.

@Jürgen Steinke

… They should identify which level the wines in question are. …

I know I can identify the quality levels, but that´s not necessarily identical with the legal AOC levels.
If there´s an Amoureuses by Mugnier or a Suchots by Arnoux they are doubtless of GC quality, while a Clos Vougeot by L.Latour or a Charmes-Chambertin by Camus is not.
I very much doubt that I would call a Village wine a GC …