Henri Boillot white burgs have consistently received rave reviews from essentially all wine critics, and yet I have not seen ANY tasting notes attesting to how these wines have aged since they popped onto the radar with some impressively high ratings. I stopped buying them after a number of premoxed wines in the 1999 and 2000 vintages, though I recall a very nice 00 PM Mouchere and a nice 2001 Corton-Charlemagne…both with very concentrated fruit but I felt nervous about keeping them any longer. And yet, if you read the reviews, even from Burghound, the ratings are in many cases higher than Coche or Leflaive (and I say “even Burghound” as I consider him to perhaps be more of a traditionalist than some). I would be interested in others’ experiences with these wines, how they age, etc. I could bring up the same point about Fevre whose ratings are sky high and whose premox rates, ay least in my experience, has been sky high as well, enough that I am no longer a buyer. Yet the ratings from one and all, Burghound, Gilman, Tanzer continue to soar…though I haven’t seen any reassessments from a few years down the line from any of them. I understand that the initial ratings are ignoring the premox threat since it is unpredictable, but premox aside…for pristine bottles, what experiences are people having in how Boillot whites, and maybe Fevre whites, are aging, and are they delivering on their “potential” which has been assessed as right up there with the greatest white Burgundy producers???
Hi Rob, nice to see you posting here again.
Unfortunately no experience with H. Boillot here, but my experience with Fevre mirrors yours. I have a bunch in the cellar but having had 2 less-than-stellar experiences out of 4, I haven’t felt motivated to open any Fevre Chablis lately.
Cheers,
Doug
I’ve got a 2009 bourgogne blanc in the 'fridge for later today so I’ll let you know how it ages between now and then… ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
Rob - I have a couple of 1996s from him…
3 out of my 4 bottles of '00 H Boillot Corton Charlie were brilliant, however the 4th was poxed. All were complex and elegant with great balance. Not a powerhouse CC but lovely.
I get what you are saying, but I think that with almost any of the producers that had premox issues, there has been buyer apprehensiveness. Also, I think the vintages that have gotten the most recognition for Boillot has really been in the last 3 vintages (with solid scores popping up here and there since 2001), so I bet most think the wines are still too young. I’ve had some 01s and 04s (including Mouchere, Pucelles and Criots, but can’t tell you what was from what vintage other than, it was one of the 2, it’s been a couple years), and they were tremendous. I’ve found even the BB needs a few years (Mel, I look forward to your notes!). Keep in mind too, most of the Boillot wines aren’t what I would call “limited” production. They have fairly large holdings (Mouchere is a huge vineyard vs. a lot of other high caliber Puligny vineyards, let alone other Monopoles), which I think has helped keep prices normal.
Nothing wrong with any of this, but I think the premox fear has really sent customers running.
Robert,
I am a huge fan of H. Boillot and have been buying since the 1999 vintage. The oldest Boillot wines in my cellar now are a few 2001s and 2002s and they are still drinking beautifully, particularly the P-M Folatieres, Meursault Perrieres, Batard and BB-Montrachet. I noticed that starting with the 2005 vintage the wines seemed to have an additional level of richness and depth of fruit but still maintaining that spine of Boillot minerality. I have had issues with older Jean Boillot wines oxidizing though. I believe those wines are now subsumed into Domaine H. Boillot.
As for Fevre, luckily I have not had the POX problems many others have documented. Maybe 1 or 2 bottles out of numerous cases. I buy Fevre in most every vintage though most are sourced European gray market. Not sure if that makes any difference.
Big fan of Boillots whites, but there is some variation from that period…
I have had some stellar wines from '99-'02, as well as a few that looked much more forward than they should have, and one oxidized one, although others have had more oxidized ones than me.
Personally, I’d be looking to drink up anything from '99-'02 now, as even if they are not at their peak, then I’d rather catch them then than on the way down. I only have two bottles myself now left (a '99 and '01 Montrachet), and I will open them soon when I can find the right occasion…
Well, it sounds like some of us have had some premox issues from the Boillots and some have not had more than the average amount found in most producers’ white burgs. Some have cautioned that the 99-02 might have been a little problematic in this regard, and of course the next aging vintage after that would be the 04’s and that vintage and later should be just starting to show their premature decline if that is their destiny.
Aside from the unpredictable pox issues, however, i am just wondering stylistically what others are thinking about the exceedingly highly rated Boillots…both the more reasonably priced premier crus and the VERY expensive Grand Crus. It sounds like fruit is certainly there. Is the style seen as overly forward, overly ripe…concentrated and impressive early but lacking the structure to make glorious old bones assuming they escape the premature death? Or are these wines, as indicated by their scores, up there…ready to compete head to head 10 years from now with Leflaive Chevalier, Coche Corton-Charlemagne, Roulot M-Perrieres, etc? If you had $300+ burning a hole in your pocket and wanted to convert it to a Chevalier tha would blow you away in 10 years, would you buy a Leflaive or a Boillot?
I guess what I am driving at is that we see some producers such as Boillot and Fevre get heaped with praise and granted stellar scores year after year, but I am not seeing many notes on their progress some years down the line. Are they being awarded those raves based on their aging potential, a potential that I have not yet experienced as too many of my bottles have turned and the others were subsequently consumed early…or are those rave reviews based on tasting fruit forward, accessible yet concentrated wines that are showy but fall apart too soon. Maybe not a good example, but I used to search out Lafons which were so showy and forward and deeply concentrated early on until I gradually became disappointed with how they were aging and how many of these “cellar treasures” were getting tired after a few years. Not that most of the wine critics ever discussed how the wines actually performed over time. Judging by the scores, Fevre is every bit the equal of Raveneau. Hmmm. From the barrel? At 10 years from the vintage? Lots of sweet fruit, immediately accessible, almost more a ripe Cote d’Or than a Chablis…but structured and even a little austere enough to age as one would expect a great Chablis to age? I am not sure at least from MY personal and somewhat limited experience, I am not going to hear from the wine critics, so I am anxious to continue to hear from the white burgophiles.
I am one who 100% believes that Fevre has never, ever, ever been anywhere at all near the quality of Raveneau.
Wouldn’t compare Boillot to Lafon either, but I see what you are getting at, given the context of what you are asking. Don’t find them forward, showy or OTT at all.
I can’t speak for the whole range, as I have only had one or two whites that weren’t GC, but here’s a few impressions of what I think as a point of discussion…
The C/C is as good or better than anyone else now IMHO, except Coche and Leroy. These do seem to be built to age, although I haven’t had one older than '00. Really great quality, that if anything, keeps getting better, and at a reasonable price point given it’s hierarchical position…would love to see an old one for a comparison with the many old C/C’s I have tried though.
The Batard is very good, I think on par with Leflaive from the few I have had. Layered and quite fine for Batard, but with latent power.
The Chevalier is also in my top few Chevaliers, and recent example shave shown, like Leflaive, to have quite a bit of Sulphur, thus needing time. The are pretty much as defined and fine as Leflaive, with a similar level of complexity. They are actually quite evenly matched, with perhaps the slight question of premox of the Boillots tipping it Leflaives way. As a comparison the '01 Boillot at the top of it’s game is every bit a match for the '01 Lefaive, and actually fairly similar in style.
I have had one or two slightly lesser bottles of the '01 Boillot, but then a few weeks ago also had a less than stellar '01 Leflaive that looked a bit broad and fat (we all thought it was Batard).
I love Boillots Montrachet, and it is this (along with the C/C) that is his top wine. Again, having almost all of his recent vintages, this is up there with the top few makers IMHO. The '99 and '01 are superb (but from a case though again were there were some premoxed bottles), whilst the '07 is flat out amazing. The '04 for me looked as good as a Ramonet at the same dinner (and not far behind a DRC in terms of absolute quality), whilst the '05 was fantastic, and actually finer and leaner than I expected…
Totally agree Paul. And then when you throw in their premox record…
And as to Chevalier, I would throw Chateau de Puligny in the ring. Etienne de Montille is making some really great whites these days.
I happen tho think that his CC and Puligny Cailleret under the Montille label are reference standard stuff.
I’m happy with my HBs from a premox standpoint. None have been bad. The CC is totally stunning wine and been buying it since 05. The Clos Muchere, on the other hand, has not yet lived up to its biling for me. my 04 Muchere has been awefully oaky, so far.
A bit of background information on Boillot and premox: http://oxidised-burgs.wikispaces.com/Boillot%2C+Henri+and+Boillot%2C+Jean
Same for Fèvre: http://oxidised-burgs.wikispaces.com/Fevre
As you can see Boillot’s wines have been overwhelmingly reported as not oxidised, so short of some clear TNs indicating the contrary, I’d rather consider this producer as “clean”. On the other hand, my personal experience is pretty much limited to 2000 and 2001 Mouchères, same as Robert, and all the bottles I’ve had were simply great. Incidentally a couple of days ago I found a half-bottle of 2001 Mouchères (or 2000, can’t remember) that I plan to open soon. I wouldn’t be surprised if the wine was a bit tired, and I’ll certainly report if it’s oxidized.
Re: Fèvre the record isn’t quite as good but I must have been lucky since I haven’t opened an oxidized bottle yet (contrary to say, François Jobard, who I thought was a safe bet, but I’m now very worried about my stash of 2001 and 2002 Meursaults–several climats). As for the comparison of Fèvre to Raveneau, I would say they are hard to compare since the styles are quite different (and again quite different from Dauvissat’s who is also often considered one of the top producers in the region). I’ve had many great wines from Raveneau, including a 2000 Clos that’s so far the best Chablis I’ve ever had, but I’ve had my share of disappointments too, including some oxidized 99s or 02s. Fèvre might not reach the same heights but I have fond memories of a 98 Grenouilles, and they seem to do well in tougher vintages (01 Clos) or with lesser crus (04 Lys). I would definitely not write this producer off. The only sad thing is that the prices aren’t what they once were, unfortunately.
Love the Boillot wines. They are really early accessible and lovely. They age pretty nicely too. Re: Fevre. I have had some very bad luck with 02 Fevre Bougros. Almost 100% good Les Clos. I don’t understand this at all. I don’t buy Fevre any more however because of this.
I like Boillot a lot but the prices since he switched importers have gotten a bit beyond my comfort level.
Most recently, I had a bottle of his 2000 Puligny Folatières a couple of weeks ago, and the 2000 Corton Charlemagne about a year ago. Both showed brilliantly: the Folatières was very fresh, pale with green highlights, exactly where you’d like a 10 year old white Burgundy to be; the Corton Charlemagne, last summer, was equally good, very concentrated, and without a trace of oxidation.
A little dated now, but a bottle of the 2002 Mouchère a few years ago was excellent.
I couldn’t agree more…'85 Clos was an epiphany wine for me. One of the best white burgs I have ever had. Fevre is good, but not in the same league imo.
I purged all my Boillot. I find them to be good and correct but rarely exciting. That lack the burginess that I look for. Ditto Fevre.
love the power behind the recent vintages of the Henri Cortons. Starting to get pretttty pricey but as Paul said, they are only behind Coche/Leroy in quality.
'02 Batard has been superb.
Had the '04 Meursault - Perrieres last night, early maturing in a softer style and ready to drink.
As an aside, also tasted the '02 Bouchard - Perrieres last night, which was very fresh, showing good minerality, and a powerful finish.
Like dcornutt above, I no longer buy Fevre. Very bad problems with oxidized GC 02. As far as the good ones, they are just that- good, but not very exciting. Now Dauvissat excites me when they are hitting it. I too am frustrated that all the critics rave, I buy and get stuck with crap. Avoid Fevre unless you get a great price and want to drink it young.
Boillot: I have mixed feeling now. I’m not sure I’ll be buying anymore. Village PM 05 is oxidized and crap!!! The Moucheres is way too oaky for me. I have not had much experience with the GC’s. Once again, the critics rave, I buy and get stuck with crap.