JF Mugnier NSG 1er Clos de la Maréchale vertical, 2004-2019 and then some

It takes a village (of wine geeks) to host a vertical of JF Mugnier’s Nuits St. Georges 1er Clos de la Maréchale.

What started as chit-chat over Szechuan and Riesling “You know, I have most of the early Marechales”(Randy K) snowballed, stone-soup style. “Oh yeah? I have a bunch of the new ones” said one, “I have the 10” chimed another. “Andrew K can find the elusive 07’, he has skills” said a third. And off we went.

While the Marechale is neither exalted terroir nor a rarified wine, it is honest Burgundy. What IS rare is the opportunity to taste a 16-year vertical, all made under the direction of a single winemaker, Frédéric Mugnier.

It may not be in Beaune, but you can just about see it from there. The Clos is officially a part of Nuits-Saint-Georges, but more precisely it is at the southernmost end of the Premeaux appellation. (Map adapted from the World Atlas of Wine, 8th ed.)

Winemaking
100% Destemmed, gentle handling, whole berry fermentation, ambient yeast, 17-20% new wood. No fining or filtration. Reds apparently spend a year in barrel, then 6 months in stainless steel.
In winemaking, Fred is seeking the absence of Fred. -Peter Wasserman

Fun facts
The Marechale name seems to refer to a Maréchal de Champ (Sergeant major general) – or to the wife of a Maréchal de Champ.

Notice anything odd about the label? When Frédéric got the vineyard back in 2004, they hired someone to put an archway over the vineyard entrance. The metalworker mistakenly installed the “a” in “la Maréchale” backwards. They decided to keep the sign as it was, and the label followed.


The Clos is a true clos, which is to say walled in on all 4 sides. At 9+ hectares, it is the largest monopole in Burgundy (Image adapted from Steen Öhman’s detailed discussion of the vineyard history in Winehog)

The Wines I defer to others to chime in with detailed comments. Jon R was in the house (Rezy13 on CT). I’ll nudge him to post his always-on-point notes to Cellartracker. Label alcohols were 13% unless otherwise stated. In 2015 they start moving upwards.

Flight 1:
04- A bit green, airtime did not really help
05- Stiff and closed, big and deep- sleeping giant?
06- Perfumed nose, cherry fruit with nice balance of acid and tannic grip WOTF
07- Burnt rubber nose and palate, mercaptan reduction apparently.

Flight 2
08- Nice quenching red and black fruit, med body
09- Rubber again, touch of sweet fruit and volatility. This ripe vintage didn’t show well today. 14% Alc.
10- “Precise”, granular tannins, fresh, balanced ripeness and acid. WOTF
11- Eh, the 10’ threw shade on this one

Flight 3: Bonus round -Joel K generously shared a 76’ and an 85 Faiveley from the Clos “in the name of science”. Unlike the Mugnier expressions, Faiveley apparently vinified with whole cluster fermentation.

1976 Faiveley Clos de la Maréchale - Pale brick brown, smells old, tastes of iron.
1985 Faiveley Clos de la Maréchale - Wow. Perfectly balanced acid and tannin, remarkably fresh. WOTN

2010 Marechale blanc - Custard, caramel, wants acid IMO, but not boring.
2015 Marechale blanc - Scuppernong/muscadine grapes, nutty. also wants acid, also not boring.

Flight 4
12- Aromatically open, drier than the 14’. Touch of VA?
13- Corked, unfortunately, 12.5% Alc.
14- Balanced red/black fruit, nice grip, nice everything. WOTF
15- Cotton candy nose, dark ripe fruit, at 13.5% alc., it tastes big

Flight 5
16- Black ripe cherry fruit. Soft and Oregon-y. At 14% alc., it IS big.
17- Nicely balanced primary red fruit, tannic grip, quenching acid. 11-14% label Alc.,(13%?) WOTF
18- Over-the-top brown sugar big. 14.1% alc.
19- Perfumed nose, ripe blackberry fruit. New world-ish. 13.5% Alc.

Themes:
The best of these wines were also the most balanced. They started out with more acid and tannin and may not have been approachable young. Among the Mugniers, the 14’, 17’ and 10’ really stood out. I would be happy to have cases of those. One had the sense of a confident winemaker who has found his stride.

In contrast, the newer ripe-vintage, higher alcohol bottles (09’, 15’, 16’, 18’, 19’) seemed over-the-top, like loud and somewhat uncouth teenagers to their more grounded and balanced predecessors. These taste like the bottled effects of climate change on Burgundy, and a challenge to any producer.

The 85’ Faiveley just had that special ineffable delicacy and depth you hope for in great Burgundy. It yielded the quote of the day:

Good Burgundy balances on the racer’s edge between sweetness and acid. (Joel, original)
It slips down the throat like the enfant Jesus in velvet pants (also Joel, paraphrasing)

And finally, a few between-flight bubbly palate cleansers, all superb. The Cristal was juicy and clean, the Tixier rose’ was dark and grippy, (my personal fizz-of-the-night) and the Courtin was toasty and tart.



18 Likes

Fun tasting idea!

1 Like

Faiveley’s sign had the backward a also . . . great notes.

3 Likes

Great read!

1 Like

Brilliant. Thank you.

2 Likes

Steve!
Thanks for doing the yeoman’s work in getting this event organized. And thanks to you and Julia for letting 11 knuckleheads crash your house on a Sun afternoon.

It was a great event. I agree with most of your notes. I think I liked the '12 more than most. I would happy to have more '05, '10, '12, '14, '17.
'05s are taking forever, but prob one of the best of the lineup one day.
Confirming '04s problem is always helpful. Several clear misses, as you point out.

Hard to top the '85. Magic. And some really, really nice Champagne, too.

Decanting the '76 below:

6 Likes

Steve. Thanks for letting me crash the tasting for a couple of hours. I did get to taste quite a few of the wines.

The 1985 was so delicious and open. It was hard to not call that the wine of the tasting. That one came from Faiveley.

Of the JF Mugnier wines, my favorites were the 2006 (darker but showed that sexy texture that people really go crazy over) and the 2010 (absolutely amazing balance and length to me).

I did enjoy the 2005 more than others. My wine cellar still smells like the 2005 I dropped before coming over. It shows stern structure but wonderful aromatics and length to me.

Some delicious champagne. I loved the Marie Courtin wine. A precise champagne that is crisp but shows some yeasty notes on the entry. Sexy.

Amazing job on the notes above Steve McL A really nice event. Thanks!

3 Likes

Great tasting, thanks for all the notes, background and discussion. It’s nice to see a vertical of a wine that is vaguely affordable. I’m a big fan of Mugnier and the CdlM - have had it more than any other of Mugnier’s wines. For fairly random reasons, I have more of 2006 and 2017 than any other vintages. I hope my palate aligns with your group’s!

4 Likes

Thanks for the note, I am running a mini-vertical of 9 vintages of this cuvée mostly in halves, so this the notes are really useful.

1 Like

05s are a pain in the ass! :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

1 Like

I have 09 and 10. Happy to hear about 10, sorry about 09.

Great notes, and thanks for hosting! Not much else to add - thankful for those who took better notes than I did.

1 Like

Big thanks to Steve for hosting! This was a really valuable tasting for me as it provided a great snapshot of all of these vintages as well as showing the effects of recent warmer years. The wealth of knowledge and experience at the table was incredible and I learned so much. Some notes:

Flight 1
2004 - musty, vegetal nose, lots of fine sediment, not good
2005 - dark, tannic, aromatically stifled, still young and primary. Should age very well, great potential here.
2006 - this one had a bit of that beautiful nose that I recall from other great Mugnier like Amoureuses, starting to show some rustic tertiary flavors, might be best to drink soon.
2007 - initially showed some brett/bandaids, some green notes but shifted in the glass and became more pleasurable. Good, but odd.

Flight 2
2008 - sensual nose, resolved tannins, slightly green nose but just added complexity, light cherry fruit, drinking very well
2009 - tannic, backward, maybe a hint of brett? This got a bit lost in the flight but could be a sleeper.
2010 - excellent, elegant, still primary and should continue to improve, the nose is just starting to develop, hold
2011 - vile nose of stewed tomato and crushed insects, undrinkable to me

Flight 3
1976 Faiveley Marechale- tea, raisinated fruit, fully tertiary. Someone said this was a Bern’s wine and that is apt.
1985 Faiveley Marechale- dark fruit, tomato toast, beautiful, seductive nose, fantastic
2010 Marechale blanc- rich, sweet, oaky aroma, more balanced on the palate with lemon curd and almond, a big, easily recognizable chardonnay
2015 Marechale blanc - crushed grape seed aroma, not recognizable next to the 2010, not my favorite

Flight 4
2012- beautiful nose, surprisingly dark and mature fruit with some VA, tannic and acidic bite on the finish
2013- corked
2014- aroma of crushed cherries, balanced and primary on the palate, needs time
2015- ripe, primary, and not very interesting at this stage

Flight5
2016- Heavy tannins, acidic, big, developing aromas, needs some time
2017- funky, slightly vegetal nose, light tannins, soft and inviting. Umami laden at a young age, suitable for early drinking, not classic
2018- bitter tannins, expressive nose, ample fruit, not pleasant to drink at the moment but could have potential
2019 - sweet, confected fruit, drying tannin, not ready to drink

3 Likes

Great theme and thanks for posting detailed notes.

@Steve_McL WOTF picks are based on how you voted or group consensus?

Great question Dinesh. It was a consensus, and I did my best to collate people’s general impressions.

It did seem like we all were basically in agreement on our favorites as a group, but as @Dennis_Atick and @Billbell attested in their notes, there were definitely some other vintages that spoke to individual tasters more than others.

For example, I prefer younger, more primary Burgs, so the 14 and 17 grabbed me more while the 06 and 12 grabbed me less. But other folks at the table who favor mature wines gravitated more to the 06, the 12 and so on.

Among the Mugniers, I think we could generalize and say that this is still a wine that shows best with some age on it, and seems like it showed better in “classic”(read: cooler) vintages as opposed to “ripe/solar” vintages.

By the way, a big thanks to Dennis and @Mike_Evans for help on the bottle pics

3 Likes

Great tasting idea and thanks for the notes, I’m hoping the best for the 17’s I own.

1 Like

Thanks Steve.

Faiveley made brilliant '85’s! If you ever see the Beze or Latricieres come up, buy without hesitation!

1 Like

Thanks to Steve for organizing and for the wonderful hospitality and food. I agree with a lot of what Steve, Dennis, and Bill have written so just a few comments.

I found the performance of the wines to be quite mixed and even after tasting them all I don’t feel like I have any clear sense of the terroir. Biggest disappointments were the undrinkably green 2004, overly tannic and closed 2005, reduced 2007, funky 2011, and massively corked 2013 among the reds and the 2015 white which reeked of oak and artificial banana (think banana Now ‘n Later).

Stars were the 2006, 2010 (both red and white), 2014, and 2017, but the 1985 was my wine of the night by far. I liked the 2008 but found it clipped on the finish, and liked the 2009 and 2019 more than some others did. The 2018 wasn’t bad, but is simple, dark fruited, and the structure is all from tannin and not acid, which isn’t a style I prefer. The 2012 was solid and showing well. Finally, the 1976 was pleasant and well worth drinking. Each of the Champagnes was excellent but each in a different way.

It really was a treat to get to take such a comprehensive look at a specific place, heightened by doing it with a terrific group of people. The wines may not have performed quite as well as I might have hoped, but the company made it an afternoon and evening that I won’t soon forget. Thanks to everyone for their contributions of food, wine, and most of all, friendship.

4 Likes

Tough draw to get your vineyard back after 50 years and your maiden vintage is 2004!

1 Like

True, but I’ve had some reasonable '04s even bordering on good. This was positively undrinkable.

Overall my impression is that it just doesn’t seem like enough time or care is spent in the vineyards or on the winemaking. There was so much vintage variation it feels like a ship tossed about by the waves. It’s obviously a huge plot, but this bottling just feels generic and not up to the level of a winemaker like Mugnier. But I guess that’s probably what’s kept it at a reasonable price point when you have BR wines from other winemakers going for the same amount on the secondary market. Who would expect to have such an embarrassment of riches from Mugnier and everyone would be talking about a Faiveley?

3 Likes