Wow! Thanks for this amazing summary, Don. ![[welldone.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/fc9709a841aa9379fd892a9cf0b535b05f473b86.gif "[welldone.gif]"){kind=small}
Don
What about Fevre? I recently had the 2006 Les Clos which I thought was great. Would like to buy more from this producer.
Right now I’m buying less then a case per vintage for all my White Burgundy “needs”. I was buying a lot of Colin-Deleger, but stopped a year or so before the domaine was broken up. So far I’ve lucky - only had one totally premoxed bottle from them. My worst producer has been Javillier. All my 99s and 2000s were premoxed.
Hey Paul,
Thanks for the heads up on Niellon I will drink my bottles soon… Yes, let’s do a dinner soon…
Leah
I used to buy a fair amount of Meursault and the various Montrachets, with a smattering of others. Other than the case of Les Genevrieres I got at the 2005 Hospices de Beaune auction and a case of Corton Charlemagne I got in early 2006, and an occasional Chablis for current consumption, I have not bought any white Burgs in about 7 years. The Corton Charlies, by the way, were half 1999 and half 2000 from Magnien and none were premoxed.
I think, given the extent of the problem, and the way so many people have been burned, that the poll should have a couple of categories between zero and “less than 50%”.
My purchasing has gone down to around 10-15%, with, as Don points out, a switch in focuas, None of my money is going to the infamously premoxed domaine of Colin-Deleger (wisely now broken up and renamed among the sons and cousins). I wrote them (not in a nasty way), about 12 premoxed bottles of their Chevalier-Montrachet (1999 and 2000). Never acknowledged.
Agree here with Don 100%. I bought far less '06’s (generally blah…), and far more '07’s than any other white vintage (just so wow!). If I have to drink them a few years early, so be it. These wines tower over any other white in the world, IMHO…
And yes, I have dropped producers that burned me in the past, and surprisingly now with what I have left, rarely have had any problems…In fact, have only had one oxidized white in the last 4-5 months, and that was brought by someone else.
+1. Well, sort of. I bought scattered bottles of Grand Cru stuff (Mom said I should have been a Doctor!) and some 1er Crus, but what little I used to buy has mostly been replaced by Muscadet, Riesling and Gruner. Most White Burg I buy for me is Chablis nowadays.
Steven:
Fevre, which has the same ownership as Bouchard, falls in Category III–a producer with average oxidation rates (10%-15%) over the long haul. Fevre was particularly successful in 2000 --their first widely distributed vintage. There’s virtually no reported oxidation on the 2000’s. In 2001 Fevre was again very successful on the oxidation front and there’s no reported oxidation to date. But in 2002, according to the wiki site, its on the order of 20+% of the bottles reported on. http://oxidised-burgs.wikispaces.com/Fevre. Personally, I’ve had about 10 bottles of the various 2002 Fevre grand crus so far and haven’t come across any that I thought were oxidized or advanced.
2004 gives me some cause for concern. There are a few reports of oxidized bottles across Fevre’s full range of 2004 wines. I experienced my first ever oxidized Fevre today – a 375 ml bottle of 2004 Valmur. I just brought home a 12-bottle box of tenths of the 2004 Valmur. The bottle I opened yesterday was very good and exactly where I would expect it to be in a 375 ml bottle – attractive, approachable flavors with bright acidity and minerality. But today, over lunch with a member of my burgundy group, a second bottle of the Valmur was clearly partially oxidized. It had light bright yellow color color, but the aromas were overwhelmingly dominated by sherry. The flavors were not as affected but the aromas made it essentially undrinkable. The fact that there are already other reports of oxidized 2004 Fevres in full sized bottles – all tasted less than 6 years after the vintage – isn’t a particularly good sign.
For reasons I’m not clear on, Bouchard has a considerably better record on premox incidence than Fevre. I consider both producers to be in Category III, but Bouchard is at the low end of the incidence range while Fevre is higher (heavily weighted by the problems with 2002).
Like Bouchard, Fevre has made major changes since 2004. Starting with the 2006 vintage, Fevre and Bouchard both introduced ultra-low oxygen bottling lines. The target SO2 level was raised to 40 ppm beginning with 2006 (sorry, but I don’t know what it was previously.) Fevre, like Bouchard, has changed cork suppliers and is buying only non-irrigated cork harvested less frequently. The corks are no longer bleached and are coated with 100% paraffin. Beginning with the 2007 vintage, the petit chablis, village chablis and all 375ml bottles are sealed with a “high quality synthetic cork” (diam). I am assuming, but have not yet been able to verify, that like Bouchard, Fevre is now weighing the corks on its grand crus to exclude low weight (i.e. low density and more porous) corks.
I certainly like all of these changes and I continue to buy Fevre’s domaine-bottled wines myself.
Brilliant piece, Don: thanks for your focus, leadership and research. Re: Fevre 2000: I had three oxidized 750 GC (Bougros Bouquerots) this year and need to put them on the wiki site.
I’m surprised about Jadot: I thought their reputation was one of a quality-conscious and well-led shop, especially where their whites are concerned. It takes an adjustment to think of them not fixing this problem. I’ve just bought a few of their 08 1er Pernand blanc, and will now drink them over the coming year, because of your analysis.
Ian:
Thank you kindly. Yes, please post a note on the wiki site. The data is helpful.
I’ve really been astonished on Jadot too. Based on my experience with the 1995 to 1999 vintages, Jadot was one of the Category V producers. Like Leflaive, Coche, Raveneau, DRC and Leroy there was no difference in oxidation rates after 1994 vs. before. We then did three tastings of 2000’s over a one year period and six of seven Jadots all from different cellars, including my own, were oxidized in a vintage where there was otherwise very little oxidation. The incidence on 2001 Jadot whites approaches 100% based on the reports. My experience with 2002 is approximately 50% oxidized and that’s again from different cellars. There are lots of reports on the wiki site about premoxed 2002’s as well. A good friend and former wine critic very recently reported that the 2004 Jadot’s are starting to have major premox problems as well.
That’s discouraging; I was beginning to develop some brand loyalty for Jadot.
Is consensus developing yet on the genesis of the problem? I read Meadows’s recent piece, reprinted in Cellar Tracker, which discusses the possible role of excessive sequestration of the must and young wine from atmospheric oxygen, beginning with the use of pneumatic presses. But I get the sense there was a kind of perfect storm of circumstances and changes in practices that opened the door to this form of taint.
Are there any hints that red wines may eventually be affected?
Thanks again.
I have been so badly burned by the premox bug that I have reduced my white burg purchases by 90% Recently I had to dump THREE consecutive bottles of '02 Colin-Deleger Puligny Truffieres, totally dead. I now buy Leflaive, Coche, Raveneau and that’s it. I look at the white burgs in my cellar as ticking time bombs waiting to go off. So sad.
Ian:
The short answer is that there is no consensus yet as to cause and, if anything, there is a sharp disagreement among producers and the wine scientific community about the role of phenols in the premox process (that’s really what Allen’s article deals with.) This controversy includes whether pressing practices (which extract one type of phenols) contribute to oxidation and it also includes a deliberate technique to remove phenols from the must by withholding sulfites at the crusher and allowing the must to brown (i.e. for the phenols in the wine to oxidize) before beginning fermenation. This latter technique is known as hyper-oxidation or more gently referred to as “browning the must.”
The redox chemistry involved is quite complex and the problem is that phenols (of which tannins are a subset) have both pro-oxidative and anti-oxidative properties. Further complicating the debate is the fact that there are two essentially separate types of oxidation that occur–the color changes that we observe in wine and associate with oxidation are produced by the oxidation of phenols in the wine [if the phenols are not first stripped out by performing hyper-oxidation or “browning the must”.] The color changes have no significant connection with the development of sherry-like aromas and flavors, which result from oxidation of ethanol into acetaldehyde. So what is commonly referred to as premature oxidation or premox is actually two independent chemical processes which sometimes, but not always, coincide.
To further add to the confusion, some producers who engage in the “browning the must” technique, which is not always disclosed, claim that the use of the technique prevents or eliminates oxidation, when what they really mean is that the technique prevents color changes in the wine but does not prevent (and according to some may actually accelerate) the oxidation of ethanol into acetaldehyde. So for producers using this technique, it is quite possible to have a wine with a youthful-appearing brilliant color that reeks of acetealdehyde.
I really need to make some changes to the wiki site to spell some of this out, but believe me that it is diffucult to understand as well as controversial. I’ve been devoting a lot of time behind the scenes on this for the past several months, and I suspect I’ve just scratched the surface. For someone who is not a chemist (my last organic chemistry class was 39 years ago), it is difficult to absorb.
With respect to your question about red wines, the answer must certainly be “yes,” but the extent of any impact on reds will depend on what causes of the premox problem in whites are identified and it will take many years longer before people start noticing any reduced cellar life for reds due to more frequent oxidiation. Reds are much less subject to oxidation than whites because they contain grape tannins and additional phenols that white grapes do not. While SO2 in red wines also helps prevent oxidation as it does in whites, it is only one of the barriers to oxidation in red wines rather than the ultimate barrier against oxidation as it is for whites. Since lessening SO2 levels accelerates eventual oxidation, yes, anyone who similarly reduced SO2 levels in their red wines will eventually find that that the wines will oxidize faster than they otherwise would have. But that impact is going to be much harder to judge because of the presence of the tannins and anthrocyanins in reds. Does it mean that a wine from a decent vintage that might otherwise have oxidized at say 35 years of age will now oxidize at say 32 years instead? Quite possibly. Obviously, no one is going to run long-term studies to figure that out, but the basic science alone tells you that if you reduce the SO2 level in the bottled wine, that wine, whether red or white, is going to oxidize faster than it otherwise would have with more SO2 added. The critical question with red wines is how much faster? Nobody has any idea at this point.
Similarly, to the extent that declining quality of corks (i.e. being more porous) or changes in cork treatments/coatings allow greater amounts of oxygen to into white wines resulting in oxidation, the same result will also necessarily impact reds bottled with those same corks, but it will take that much longer to express itself because the presence of the tannins and anthryocyanins are an additional buffer to the oxidation of the ethanol.
Nice discussion Don. What a conplex issue. I observed an interesting thing a few days ago. I served a bottle of 98 Dujac MSD and 97 Adelsheim Eliz Res the other night. Both decanted and poured. Neither were outstanding wines, but the Dujac was clearly the better wine. Both bottles had 1/2 left, therefore vacuvined and returned to cellar at 55 degrees. 2 days later I brought out both bottles to try. The Dujac showed browning and was very oxidized, whereas the Adelsheim was perfect color, with no hint of oxidation and in fact was a much better wine then, than when originally opened. This will be difficult to repeat the exercise, as I rarely leave a bottle of Dujac without drinking the whole bottle. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Thanks, Don; for a non-chemist, you are really working the problem. You’d think if we can send a man to the moon …
You’d think it wouldn’t be that hard to sort the cause out with a bit of laboratory work, since the time of the onset of the problem can be pinned down, and the universe of possible causes is therefore limited. Are the scientists disregarding data offered by the winemakers? Are the winemakers unwilling to accept responsibility for practices that may imply liability? It’s a puzzle.
I voted 50-70% , but that’s # of bottles. $$$ wise I’m down further. All of my purchases now are for drinking soon- so mostly Bourgogne (Pernot, Matrot, Leflavie) and a few st Aubins etc- the rest is closeout village and 1er - but I drink them all now.
The wine makers in burgundy are very protective of what they consider their proprietary data and methods. As far as I can determine, aside from an isolated university study here and there, the only studies being conducted on the issue are those by the burgundy trade organization, BIVB.
The BIVB studies do not involve, as best as Bill Nanson and I can determine, any systematic surveying or gathering of data from winemakers. I’m told that the winemakers simply wouldn’t tolerate that and wouldn’t cooperate. Many are concerned about potential liablity.
BIVB’s studies involve looking at some specific suggested causes and testing the hypotheses as well as studying what happens to bottled wines over time. The latter process only began a few years ago, and you may recall a summary paper published by the BIVB, which was roundly criticized for its methodology, suggesting that there was no evidence of issues with corks and coatings after two years in the bottle. It was the fact that conclusions were being drawn after two years that caused the criticism. Moreover, what BIVB has usually published is not a complete study with supporting data that has been subjected to peer review, but rather “summaries” of their findings, which are more like press releases. Another such summary report, which was published in 2009, listed five or six factors which BIVB believes to be involved in oxidation and it included a very controversial statement decried by some winemakers that light pressing of grapes (and resulting lower phenol levels) was definitely contributing to premox. Several producers, including Roulot, decried this as nonsense.
Both Bill Nanson (author of Burgundy Report and periodic poster here) and I have formally requested copies of the studies that BIVB has done as well as access to the extranet that the winemakers are given access to. The latter request has been denied but they did promise last summer that they would make available several studies, including the one that included the controversial statements about pressing practices, “soon.” We’re patiently waiting.
I don’t think that says anything about the vulnerability of red Burgundy to premature oxidation. A '98 red Burgundy village wine can’t be expected to last 2 days in a half-empty bottle and stay sound. As for the comparison to the Adelsheim: I have noticed that New World wines, for whatever reason, always seem to last longer in an open bottle without oxidizing than Old World wines of the same variety. I don’t know why. But it’s always like that.
I’m not especially afraid of my reds premoxing and I don’t think there have been any reports of its happening. The 1995 white vintage was the first vintage with widespread reports of premature oxidation**, and 1995 reds are maturing exactly the way they ought to be. Ditto for all subsequent red vintages.
** Which is the strangest thing about all of this: you’d think it would not be hard to identify something that dozens of producers all started doing differently between 1993 and 1995. You’d also think that dozens of producers independently of one another wouldn’t all have started doing something differently between 1993 and 1995. But there you have it.
Anyway, I’ll start buying white Burgundy again when the ones I’m interested in are bottled under screwcap.
I voted “stopped buying completely,” even though I technically still buy a few bottles. In a typical year, I buy a few bottles for immediate consumption: Brun’s bojo blanc, Chitry or basic Chablis, or Macon. But less than a case each year, and no Cote d’Or wines or high level Chablis. Bottle count is down probably 75%, dollar count is down at least 90%.