Notes on some recent Burgs

WINE TALK
1

Some notes on recent Burgs I’ve had the pleasure to cross paths with:

Pierre Morey 2000 Meursault Perrieres at dinner at Providence last week with the wife: I’m a huge Pierre Morey fan, and this one didn’t disappoint. Drinking really well at the moment. Seems very 2000 in that it’s a bit more rounded and fleshy than this wine can be. Slightly smoky/flinty nose, secondary notes coming in, good complexity. Comes across as really Meursault on the palate; round and bordering on rich, but nice structure on the finish and still very good length. Had the requisite minerality (given the vineyard), although you wouldn’t mistake this for Chablis. It’s developed nicely, components are integrated and it’s drinking well. Maybe not the greatest Morey Perrieres I’ve had, but really pleasurable and nice how the complexity has fleshed out (and no signs of premox at all).

Bouchard 2004 Meursault Perrieres at home with dinner over the past two nights: Unsurprising (given that it’s younger and the ‘04s seem more structured than the ‘00s to me anyway) much less developed than the Morey. Although still accessible, I think this is somewhat closed at the moment because I remember it being more effusive on release. A good wine, nice minerality, good structure and length. It’s not totally shut down, but I think it’s really tight and didn’t flesh out at all on the second day. I loved it on release, so I think it just needs more time (or maybe this bottle was slightly off?). I enjoyed it, but not at the level it should be, so I’m holding off on my other bottles for a few years.

From a dinner a few weeks ago (that I was too lazy to post on) with Mitch Hersh, Alan Weinberg, and Ryan Curry at the restaurant at the Island Hotel in Newport Beach:

Roulot 2005 Meursault Perrieres: From the first sniff, this was an intense albeit young wine. Some vintages, this wine can be pretty austere young, but this isn’t one of those vintages. Really intense, minerally nose. Lots of sulphur too, which I actually enjoy, and am thankful for given premox issues. So a wow but really young nose. Everything follows through on the palate, really great raw materials, but the components are still disjoint, this just needs time. Will be great, and really fun to check in on now. The ’04 version of this was similarly disjoint but all structure and nowhere nearly as effusive. Loved it, but it really needs time as it’s very disjoint, but you can see the parts and how they’ll come together, wish I had some in the cellar!

Raveneau 1996 Butteaux: As opposed to the Roulot, this started out quite reserved but with some air, this really fleshed out into a stunning wine. I love Raveneau, especially several of the 1ers including this one, but in the warmer vintages they can get a bit exotic. This was really classic Chablis though. Really in a great place, as it was still youthful and exuberant, but everything was in place, really integrated. A vibrant wine. It had all the minerality and seashell you’d want in Chablis, but rounded out with nice lemon/lime fruit and a balancing acidity. Layers and layers of complexity; just kept coming, didn’t ease up. Very long. Really floats my boat.

Hudelot-Noellat 1995 Romanee-St-Vivant: In a good place, but the aromatics weren’t what you’d want from a great RSV. That’s maybe partly the vintage. The knock on ‘95s is that the can be coarse especially in terms of the tannin. That wasn’t the case here, tannins were pretty fine. Things were in place, nicely balanced, good length. I really liked it, but when it comes to RSV from Hudelot, I want those really complex, heart-stopping aromatics, and they just didn’t come through here. My hopes were up because the ’98 (another vintage that gets pegged as sometimes coarse and clunky) version is brilliant. This was a really good Burg, but not that transcendent wine that great RSV can be.

Rousseau 2001 Chambertin: Now we’re freakin’ talking. This wine had me at the first sniff (which is often the case with Rousseau). Every time I have a great vintage of Rousseau Chambertin, I get excited at first but tell myself to calm down, it’s just a bottle of wine, I’m overreacting. But then I stick my nose in the glass and proceed to flip out. Very young, but really accessible (which is often the case with youngish Rousseau). Still needs time, by no means a mature Burg, but still really firing on all cylinders, such great stuff. Only needs to develop complexity, but things are already in place, such a deep wine, I love this stuff. This kind of wine you could really just smell all night long, so deep.

Drouhin 1993 Petits Monts: Mitch brought this from Colorado on a flight the day we drank it, so it got shook up. I had thought that Drouhin filters some, and ‘93s are still young, so it wouldn’t be a problem. But you could see fine sediment in the glass. And I expected this to be great (I’m a huge Petits Monts fan and the ’93 is supposed to be up there), but I think it maybe needed some time to settle. It showed really well, it was certainly a pleasure to drink (although it did have a tough time following the Rousseau), but I really think that it needed more time to settle, so judgment reserved.

Drouhin 2005 Petits Monts: Wow, this is some serious Petits Monts. Way too young to drink just for pleasure, but really fascinating to check in on, which for me is the really fun part of drinking young Burgs. This is without a doubt the biggest Drouhin Petits Monts I’ve ever tried. More overt oak than I expected and the wine is disjoint, but I see a lot of balance here, it just needs time. I think this will be great and one for the ages, but it needs really serious time and I only hope I can try a bottle again in 20+ years, because it should be unbelievable. Reminds me how disappointed I am not to have been able to find any of this.

Great night, great wines, and always great to drink with Mitch, Alan, and Ryan.

Cheers,
-Robert

2

It’s funny, there’s plenty of good press for pre-Nawrocki Hudelot-Noellats but I must admit to finding every bottle I’ve had pretty disappointing.

3

What’s your projected window of maturity on the Rousseau 2001 Chambertin? I have thus far resisted popping the cork on one of mine.

4

Tom,
I’ve been curious about this too, as I’ve had the '93 RSV twice and really thought both were really poor. This '95 was much better, but still not at the '98/'99/'01 level, all of which are brilliant. I’ve heard really good things about some of the older ones, but haven’t had them.

Cheers,
-Robert

5

Mike,
I don’t think I can guess when a wine will be mature. If something’s really shut down, I’ll guess it needs more time. But if something’s great young, I have no idea.

Plus Rousseau is weird for me (Dujac too) in that they don’t seem to shut down in the same way as other wines do. I think the '01 Rousseau’s have been wonderful from the start and I’ve never thought that opening one was a shame or way too early.

So all I can say, and others will likely have better advice, is that you’d love it now, but it’ll probably get even better if you can wait. I wouldn’t say that about a number of other producers, for which you really do need to wait. And there are Rousseau’s I’d hold off on (e.g., the '02s, the '95 Beze). If you have a decent number of the '01s and like youngish Burgs, you’ll love it. If you have fewer and really love mature Burgs, hold off. Unfortunately, that’s about as precise as I can be in prognosticating.

Cheers,
-Robert

6

Yes, it took Nawrocki to force Hudelot to accept green harvest (for the young vines) and cutback in use of oak (for some of the wines).

7

Nice notes Robert- glad to hear about your great bottle of '96 Raveneau Butteaux, as this was a wine that I loved early on in its evolutionary cycle. I once had two cases of the wine in the cellar, but my batch started to show some early signs of premox around 2002 or 2003 and they were quickly consumed by a local and very happy restaurant. On the rare occasions where I cross paths with a pristine bottle of 1996 white Burgundy, it reminds me just how much profound drinking was lost to premox when this vintage fell, as the combination of ripe, clean fruit, great terroir and zesty acidity is very, very exciting and pretty rare.

Regarding the 2001 Chambertin from Rousseau, as good as it is now, I would be inclined to wait until 2016 or so to really start to drink it, despite the glorious pleasure it delivers already. I drank my 1991 Rousseaus a bit on the early side for the same reasons that you cite with the 2001, and in hindsight I do regret that decision. They were great when I drank them between the ages seven or ten or so, but to my palate they are even better today and mine are now only happy memories.

With the Petits Monts vintages, I concur with both your adoration for the 2005 and its need for serious cellaring time and the disappointment at the shaken nature of the 1993, which should have been great if given a chance to settle. This was the first vintage to include a significant new parcel in the blend, which at the time had some younger vines in it in comparison to the very old vines in the first parcel that the wine was made from between 1985 and 1992. When it first came out I thought it was good but not quite as impressive in the context of its vintage as the 1989, 1990 and 1991 had been in the context of their respective vintages. But a bottle of the '93 served at a vertical a couple of years ago was absolutely stellar and showed the wrong-headed nature of my slight disappointment with the wine out of the blocks.

Have not tasted the '95 Hudelot RSV, but agree completely with everyone else’s observations about the changes at the estate between the pre-Nawrocki era and when he was at the helm. I have a few 1993s in the cellar from the domaine, and my plan is to let them really get some bottle age to them in the hopes that the combination of vintage and cellaring will bring out more magic than to have at them now in what I expect is a tasty, but slightly chunky phase. Also have a box of the '96 Clos Vougeot (a very underrated cuvee here IMO) which I have not even thought about opening, but which I hold out higher expectations for, as I think this was Pierre’s first vintage at Hudelot.

Best,

John

8

Re 1996 white Burgundies, I’m hosting an important dinner next Friday, so I was rummaging around in the more remote (i.e., deep storage) portions of my cellar today as much as my back would permit me and came across a small stash of 1996 Ramonets that I’d forgotten that I had. Nothing to do but take them home and see if any are sound. So for lunch I’ve opened the Vergers. Quality cork, but had the hell bleached out of it. Wine color is advanced gold, but not the deep and dull of premox. In nose the wine shows some honey and white flowers. In the mouth it is very acidic, still although there is some oiliness, too. It’s not a premoxed wine, but nothing fun to drink on its own. Food cuts the acidity and makes the wine acceptable, but nothing more. I have enough experience over the years that I know what to look for young and am rarely disappointed by wines that I cellar (other than those spoiled by premox), but this is one instance where I have to take a loss.