I was wondering since I have had a few Meursaults from good producers (Lafon and Coche) but did not enjoy them as much as other wines (Leflaive pm), is that because I don’t want the style of the producer problem or I simply don’t like Meursault. It could also be that I do not enjoy aged wines (even though I know 2014 is not that aged). I felt like the Meursaults I have had were all a bit flabby and rounded. I like the sharpness and minerality in Puligny Montrachet more. I am sure the suggestion is to try more wines but given how expensive getting wines is in Vancouver, I am not sure how to approach this problem.
Surprised to hear Meursault called round vs chiseled minerality in PM. I’ve found the opposite. I get more flab from a typical PM and Meursault tends to be mineral driven. I’m not sure if you are drinking purely village wines, but one thing about Lafon and Coche village is they drink much more into 1er level, so larger scale and more depth than your typical village.
I am fairly new to burgundy so I might be describing it weirdly but I just thought that PM and even CM have had a lot more piecing acidity to it than the Meursault. The Meursault at least in the 2014 coche was a lot more buttery, creamy and smooth.
Meursault and Chassagne were generally and historically ‘rounder’ than Puligny and Chablis. A great Paris restauranteur once phrased it this way: Meursault/Chassagne in the fall and winter for fall/winter heavier cuisine, and Puligny/Chablis in the spring/summer for brighter cuisine.
With global climate change, Puligny and Chablis have become rounder, too.
Historically it has generally been the view that Meursault provides more buttery richness while Puligny provides a more incisive touch. This is all a simplification, of course, and producer style matters a lot, but I think that still holds true. Certainly chez Lafon they would expect the wines to be rounder and richer than a Puligny* – that has always been a feature, not a bug (and I’m very much an admirer of the wines). It’s possible you like your wines on the leaner side, in which case Puligny may be more your style, though you may also just have not had a couple of great bottles. At a dinner this year a Meursault producer said that he didn’t like a particular vintage because “it’s too lean – the wines should be richer, broader – that’s real Meursault!” I think that’s the general consensus.
*Of course, Lafon has also made a Puligny (and might again…); it’s always producer dependent! Coche makes both as well, of course.
I mean, there’s basically no downside to preferring Puligny wines over Lafon and Coche Meursault, so I don’t recommend you make TOO much of an effort ;)! My suggestion would be to line up 3 wines from Bouchard - the Meursault Perrieres, Meursault Genevrieres and Puligny Champ Gain. Then pick out you favourite and least favourite and let us know the results.
I’m suggesting the Bouchards because: they should be readily available | they are good value (not expensive, but very good wines) | it takes out producer signature from the evaluation.
There are so many producers and styles in Meursault - hard to generalize … and Coche-D also makes a Puligny …
In my experience Puligny often is more focussed, more pecise but less sumptuous than Meursault, while Chassagne seems to be slightly softer, broader, floral and open earlier - but it vm depends on producer.
And seeing how you like to present yourself like some sort of Burgundy pro here, I am surprised to see you write something like this.
As Mark, Greg and Paul point out, Puligny has been historically the appellation producing more mineral and acid-driven whites in contrast to the softer, more fruit-driven whites of the Chassagne side. Meursault has been historically fatter and creamier than either one - often with noticeable emphasis on buttery notes and oak influence. This difference is even more exacerbated when contrasting Meursault wines by Meursault producers and Puligny wines by producers located further down south. Basically every decent book about Burgundy wines tells this traditional distinction between these neighboring appellations and thus should be common knowledge to anyone even half-versed in Burgundy.
Sure, it is important to taste the wines so you know what you talk about. However, it’s also equally important to read and understand the wines you’re tasting - otherwise you can end up being the victim of selection bias. Which most likely has happened to you.
Also, as many point out, there are so many producers out there so it is hard to generalize - especially when today the lighter, more mineral wines are en vogue - thus one producer’s Meursault can feel more mineral and chiseled than other’s traditional Puligny. However, typically one can expect one producer’s Puligny from one vintage to be lighter and more mineral than the same producer’s Meursault from the same vintage.
When looking things from the bigger perspective, you’re correct here. Andrew just seems to be fairly new to Burgundy.
Might be an unpopular stance, but to me going straight for Coche and Lafon when you’re new is maybe a tad extreme? There are many producers who IMO are a bit less idiosyncratic and should give you a better tell on the variability in both areas. And I’m also very surprised that Andrew found PM to be the flabbier wine, I can try to guess producers one could line-up to make that point strongly but it wouldn’t be obvious (to me!’) especially if constrained to one vintage.
One other solution is to “solve” the acidity issue by trying Meursaults from vintages that are higher in acidity.
I know I have sometimes done this with German wines, looking to the Saar for wines in lower acid vintages and then maybe Piesport in higher acid vintages (have had fabulous wines from Piesport in 2010 for example).
I’m sorry that my posts seem to threaten your status as resident Burgundy Pro, but, on the contrary, I’ve freely admitted for years that I’m much less experienced than many people around here and have a lot to learn.
But it’s a message board and people post their opinions and thoughts and I like to post my opinions. And it’s normal for people to disagree with each other and had different opinions about things and sometimes express those differences, but it’s awfully pedantic of you to chase down every post I make just to poke as many holes as possible in it.
It seems to be basically the only significant posts you seem to make any more. As far as I can tell, you have a lot of knowledge on a lot of topics and I think it would be much more valuable to the community if you chose to share that openly instead of antagonistically.
You seem to have tried wines from blue chip producers that most would say are reference point wines for their respective appellations. There’s nothing wrong with gravitating towards wines you resonate more with as you continue to explore. Trust your palate and let that guide you over others’ opinions on wine, but be aware that many wine drinkers will see their palates change and evolve to various degrees over time.
So as you continue to taste wines that are of interest to you, keep an open mind and be judicious about going deep in any particular wine. You’ll find no shortage of Berserkers who purchased a case or more of a wine early on only to discover down the road they no longer have a fondness for that particular wine/style.
Getting together with other wine lovers in your area also helps folks taste a wider array of wines than they would individually. Fellow Berserker Mike Grammer has a master database/thread of folks who like to meet up for wine that could be worth checking out
Lol me? I don’t even drink much Burgundy or are interested about the region as a whole. I’m pretty sure you drink several magnitudes more Burgundy than I do. I’ve never claimed to be a Burgundy pro or any other pro for that matter.
I’m also quite amused how you think “I chase down every post you make”. Not at all, I probably don’t even read most of the threads you post in! I just normally react to posts that I just happen to come across in threads I browse and contain information that is in stark conflict with reality or facts. And you might not be aware about this, but as you post so much about Burgundy and Champagne and the trophy wines you buy and drink, there are several people who might consider give your views much more credence than you think - at least when you write about these subjects.
So in conclusion, it’s not you. It’s everybody why posts stuff that seems to be incorrect. It’s just hard for me to ignore factually incorrect messages, especially when it gets so repetitive. I admit to reacting to your posts more often than to many others’ posts, but that’s only because you seem to be posting either opinions that seem to be conflicting the larger reality (as, for example, here) or just factually incorrect information based on hearsay at best (as in the “morning after” thread)! I hope you have noticed that I normally don’t have any problems with messages that are correct!
And it’s perfectly ok if you think the only significant posts I make anymore are those in which I chase you down - that only means you do give them some significance after all! However, I’m not offended if you haven’t missed out all the other posts I’ve made - they probably are not in the threads you normally read. Based on the constant likes and other reactions I get from them, at least many other users here seem to find them valuable enough!
Richard, one thing you’ve found out is that here on WB we take our Meursault very seriously
Have you scrolled through the What Champagne are You Drinking Thread this year? I think that may be this forum’s best example of dozens of us discussing/presenting experiences with a wide variety of producers & styles. A lot of top producers, but also some more modest ones.
For myself, I really don’t like when people quote a Book or ‘Standard Theory’ when discussing how wine tastes or presents. For background info, or vineyard/producer, have at it. But the beauty of a Forum is having real-world discussions about a wine. And from a global perspective of people actually drinking and discovering.
Ironically, if you collect all the notes/tastings Otto has presented on here, it’s definitely book length . But a person presenting his own Book is a lot more appealing than a bunch of folks quoting from the classics from wine Libraries.
I’m actually permanently scarred from my family telling me I don’t know/understand some wine I just tasted (from top producer or region they’d never experienced or tasted themselves) because I haven’t read or agree with a Book or an expert. So, I suppose I have strong sense memories on this topic . Sometimes people would rather quote a book than be inquisitive and admit they really have no personal experience with something.
(Laughs) And say what one will about Andrew (and clearly, many do ) But he really embraces the concept of tasting & discovery. He’ll bring incredible bottles for a variety of novice drinkers because he’s very curious to see how they shall be embraced or not embraced. Few folks are as curious as Andrew.
On a personal note, I’ve been drinking/exploring High end white Burgundy & I’m constantly reevaluating producers & regions. Constantly . Take your time.
. But a person presenting his own Book is a lot more appealing than a bunch of folks quoting from the classics from wine Libraries.
. Sometimes people would rather quote a book than be inquisitive and admit they really have no personal experience with something.
. Take your time.