He generally prefers his Bâtard, and personally I agree! Apparently the parcel he sources from (and now farms) is 90 years old and produces tiny berries.
Don’t think he has made Montrachet, BBM or Criots the last couple of years but maybe he simply didn’t present them for tasting.
Many thanks for all the replies, and especially to William Kelly.
Best regards,
Alex R.
I think Caroline Morey now makes a Criots.
I remember. What a wine. Yes a 1993 Chevalier. Brought by Jim Coley. It is one of the greatest white wine experiences of my life. Hi Donn. I didn’t make the connection until now.
As many have echoed here, I think it ultimately depends on producer. Like PYCM, Pernot’s BBM are quite good. . . some would argue it is better than his Batard.
Need more personal data points ![[grin.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/5/53ba06e9b6e4b370ae7e3d7b3702ad1bda0a2d8e.gif "grin"){kind=small}
The 2010 Ramonet Montrachet, had in its extreme youth, is arguably the greatest dry white wine I’ve ever had–only the 1999 Haut-Brion Blanc is in the same discussion.
I have in mind a memorable petit conversation with Francois Audouze at a dinner in 2014 where I brought the 08 Blain-Gagnard Criots-Batard (with thanks to Dr. Don for first helping me to discover it!) and we both commented sotto voce that we preferred Criots to Batard, but it is all about style preference I think. In my very limited experience:
Montrachet
Chevy
Criots
Batard
BBM
fun topic and thanks to posters for weighing in with lots of great comments thus far, especially with reference to producer impact .In that vein, Juyuan, with Pernot, I agree with you, though the Batard is by no means shabby
Fwiw on Monday I had
BBM is blessed with basically only really good producers making it. I would tend to put it on the same level as a vineyard as Batard, and often prefer it.
It was at Paulee de Hersh 1 that we drank the 93 D’Auvenay Chevalier and it was an enormous wine against other great Chevy’s from different vintages.
93 whites are a very good to excellent vintage and the last good white burgs for aging confidently before the problems began with 95 forward.
Montrachet is a tough wine to truly understand as to really appreciate its subletly, nuance, flavor and texture full maturity is required. For DRC;
That is often 30 years or more and Ramonet 20-25 years or more, Laguiche, Jacques Gagnard, and others perhaps 15-25 years depending on the vintage.
Generally Chevalier and the others gives it all it’s got by their 10th birthday and offers up a richness and minerals not found in Batard which has more power and less finesse and Bienvenue much gentler with the finesse there. As to Criot it’s lovely and balanced and in the hands of Olivier Lamy delivers a beautiful experience.
All things being equal Montrachet is by far the top dog. Unfortunately most people because of premox will miss these experiences comparing mature Montrachet to Chevalier.
For me Chevalier is a very satisfying often sublime experience.
Hi Chet,
Indeed, aged Blanc Burgundy is generally a low probability for the future, at this time. But, there are cellars with these rarities today, going back 30++ years. Extremely rare, of course!
It would fascinating to do a comparative Chevalier Montrachet/Le Montrachet dinner, with ALL wines having a minimum age of twenty to twenty five years from appropriate vintages.
Is there interest in this profile of tasting/dinner?
Agreed on 93. I think that vintage’s qualities got lost coming after 92 (like 91 reds with 90) and that was the point where some critical voices really began giving better press to more approachable wines.
I was sorry to have to miss the reunion last summer.
I disagree on the general great qualities of 1993 white Burgs. I had far more disapointing ones than good ones, most are very high in acidity, lacking in ripe fruit, harmony and finish, quite a few are shrill and unbalanced. Sure there are some really good examples (not having tasted this d´Auvenay), but the statement that the vintage is generally excellent is imho misleading. Most have survived due to the acidity, but 1992 in white is far superior.
(however 1993 is better than 1994 … no great surprise).
Bear in mind 93 was completely forgotten at the time, like 94. It was not 92 - but there were some outstanding wines made that were hard to enjoy young that blossomed, the way White Burgundy used to be. There were still wines like this in 96, though the transition to early accessibility was well underway. I compared it earlier to 91 reds, but in a sense its the inverse of 93 reds, where the top wines made the vintage as a whole seem better. Here, the top wines were overshadowed by more challenging wines - probably because 92 reds were generally dreadful while 92 whites were widely lauded.
I also prize acidity, so I may like wines you find unpleasant.
If nothing else, the potential was there in 93 - the four of us in the thread who actually tasted the d’Auvenay tasted it in the company of some of the best 92 Chevaliers, and it wan’t even close (not that the 92s weren’t stunning, but…). We can all remember the wine vividly over 10 years later, and I am with Don that it was one of the great wine moments of my life.
Jim very eloquently expressed not only on the shared experience we had with Bize’s 93 Chevalier but the reason that 93 whites have aged so well based on their acidity. 92’s have a much different and richer flavor profile and those that have survived are both in a very good spot currently and have been so for the past 5 years plus, and at their peak-plateau.
If you look more closely at my original statement regarding 93 white b’s, I was quite careful in stating that the 93 whites ranged from very good to excellent, and I’ll add that they were late bloomers not unlike 88 whites and were purchased by most collectors after or on the heels of both 89’s and 92’s. Both vintages 88 and 93 whites languished on the shelves of retailers and remained readily available.
Also, I’m as always only talking about the most respected addresses, and only premier and grand cru vineyards from that time, including those from Ramonet, Niellon, Sauzet and Lafon amongst others like Bonneau du Martray.
THE real point however is that there is a conversation to be had 26 years later about the still very good to excellent 93 white burgundies.
I have in queue for consumption both 93 Sauzet Bienvenue and Drouhin Corton Charlemagne. I will report on these soon. For me it’s absolutely tragic how much post 93 White Burgundy I have poured down the drain. On the bright side a 2014 Ramonet Caillerets tonight was so good and painfully young with enormous dry extract and all things being equal and that is a BIG if, it’s a bottle and vintage to discuss around 2040, and if that were to happen I’d be nearly 90 years old… Yikes!
Having ceased being so serious about wine, it has allowed me to enjoy it so much more in the past 5 years, and to post and talk less about them.
I wish that on everyone in the new year and going forward!
Most of what´s written above is true, but I disagree with:
THE real point however is that there is a conversation to be had 26 years later about the still very good to excellent 93 white burgundies. <<
Yes, SOME very good to excellent 93 white Burgundies … but the majority of what I´ve tasted are not outstanding, but only good, sometimes very good but often only mean and lean, lacking real ripe fruit and showing mostly acidity …
I would NOT buy 93 whites on a posting like this only, thinking one couldn´t be wrong with the vintage - but rather taste first … and then buy when you really like it …
I would partipate in such a tasting.
I would have to buy some bottles though.
I missed the boat on 93, falling on the heels of beloved 92s and being so acidic in their youth. Unfortunately my other mistake was drinking my 92s too young, thinking it a Californiesque vintage. And I agree re 14 Ramonet–painfully awesome.
LE MONTRACHET / MONTRACHEThttp://montrachet.com/montrachet/cadastre/montrachet/montrachet_g.html
<><><>&<><><>
In their “Nouvel atlas des grands vignobles de Bourgogne” Sylvain Pithiot and Pierre Poupon indicate that the “Montrachet” AOC consists of two different “lieux dits” (plots), one being called “Montrachet” on the soil of the commune of Puligny-Montrachet, with a surface of 4 hectares, 1 are and 7 centiares, the other one beeing named “Le Montrachet”, located within the boundaries of the commune of Chassagne-Montrachet, with a surface of 3ha 98a 73ca.
I would suppose only these producers whose Montrachet is made from grapes coming exclusively from the Chassagne plot may call their wine “Le Montrachet” if they so wish.
<><><>&<><><>
There is no difference between Montrachet and le Montrachet. Montrachet refers to both in its entirety.
“Pour Montrachet Sur le territoire de Puligny-Montrachet, section A, n. 1 à 2. Sur le territoire de Chassagne-Montrachet, section A, n. 29 à 33 et n. 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, dénommées « Dents de Chien »”.
Décret du 19 mars 1998 relatif à certaines appellations d’origine contrôlées de la région Bourgogne - J.O n° 72 du 26 Mars 1998 Article 1er.
By the way, Article 3eme states that the minimum alcohol of Montrachet and Chevalier-Montrachet is 12% while Batard, Bienvenues, and Criots are only 11.5%.
<><><>&<><><>
La Cabotte is a separate vineyard within the confines of Le Montrachet but is considered part of Chevalier Montrachet.
The section is next to a working shed “cabotte” that belongs to Bouchard.
It is a fascinating looking building. Luc Bouchard, said that this little section was part of a parcel of Montrachet that Bouchard purchased. The exact reason that it was not labeled as such was said to be due to tax purposes. There were probably other political reasons. Bouchard is now actively trying to have this reclassified. It is really Montrachet. It is a very small vineyard.