So, in updating my Cellartracker inventory I came across this note on the 2004 Dujac Gevrey-Chambertin Aux Combottes:
“Served double-blind. Several days later from memory. Big burst of complex pinot fruit mixed with earth and bosky notes in the nose. Then the wine almost seemed to be transmuted in the mouth, losing all the complexity and resolving in a somewhat thin, more or less uni-dimensional candied cherry. I went back and forth in my mind between California and Burgundy, and as I sometimes do when unable to make up my mind, assumed it must therefore be Oregonian, and that’s what it ultimately seemed like, a single vineyard Chehalem or some such, though that’s undoubtedly insulting the Chehalem. When it was revealed, I had to really sit back and take stock of my mistakes in the analysis, but not even an average vintage could explain how this failed to demonstrate even cursory nods to the terroir. In other words, either I or M. Dujac have no idea what 1er cru Gevrey is supposed to taste like. With so much good burgundy on the market today this seems like a house to avoid.”
Without getting into the whole “2004 Red Burgundy thing” this note just struck me as hilarious given the clear implication of the second to last sentance.