Roumi Yeah Baby

It had been Paul Hanna’s desire to put together a Roumier Bonnes Mares dinner and last night 10 of us gathered at Restaurant Ezard to put it into fruition. I have always been surprised that Roumier has achieved such cult status. Not because their wines aren’t brilliant they are. It is just that the wines are not flashy, plump and sweet and they need several decades to show their best. Last night’s line-up confirmed that Roumier’s Bonnes Mares is indeed in the top echelon of Burgundy. The wines are dense and oaky but savoury and pure. They are chewy, built for the cellar and unfurl slowly in their own time. There are plenty of engaging floral perfumes but an underlying masculinity.

Paul kicked us off with a couple of Taittinger Comtes de Champagne where the 1998 just overshadowed the 1996. The 1998 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne had an engaging scent of citrus blossom, mineral and lemon. It was rich and powerful with a chalky base and plenty of finesse. There was a big lick of mineral on the finish and it was fresh and energetic. The 1996 Taittinger Comtes de Champagne had just a hint of toasty/mushroom development. It was fine and elegant with some mandarin peel notes and also the citrus blossom we saw in the ’98. It finished with excellent precision. Big G arrived a little late and had these two thrust under his nose. When asked if they were both from the same or different maker he went with different. When told they were the same he said that was his second choice.

Four Leflaive Chevalier made up the white bracket. They were served pretty close to room temperature and this showed up the exotic nature in the wines and was my excuse for guessing Batard. The 2002 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier-Montrachet was in sparkling form. It had a little spearmint cream to the aroma along with feijoa and paw paw notes. It was rich in the mouth yet compact with Chevalier shape and excellent length. The 2001 Domaine Leflaive Chevlaier-Montrachet has looked quite exotic regardless of temperature over the last few years and this bottle was no exception. It too had some feijoa and a hint of rockmelon. It was very powerful and dense, unfurling in the glass to show some mineral and decent detail. I thought the 2009 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier-Montrachet was the wine of the bracket. It was very dense and tight, exuding a faint whiff of vanilla and hazelnut cream. In the mouth it had dense, sappy orchard fruit, a sweet heart and terrific mineral line. It showed great definition and persistence. The 2008 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier-Montrachet hit the ground running and showed great detail. It was dense, tense, rich and powerful. Orchard fruits were tinged with aniseed and there were some toasty/spicy notes from the oak. After it spent a little time in glass there were some worrisome caramel flavours sneaking into the flavor profile. At the end of this excellent white bracket we spoke about next month’s old wine event. Michael asked if he could put on a few older spirits. Greg, one of the country’s top silks, made mention that he would prefer not to drink any spirits as he had to be in court the next day. Anthony, as quick as a flash, responded with ‘I think we’ll all be in court the next day if we drink spirits’. We will stick to wine for next month’s dinner.

The main event was split into two brackets, the first with six wines being older or from the so called weaker vintages. The 1993 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares was superb. It was very earthy, rich, full and powerful. It had a sweet floral perfume and finished with crunchy mineral cut. It is just starting to drink well and should age beautifully for several decades more. The 2004 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares is greener than Kermit the frog. It is all celery, tinned green bean and coriander leaf on the nose. There is some up front sweetness to the palate but then it clamps down hard leading to a shrill finish. I’m donating my last remaining bottle to Stuart Niemtzow, it will send him right over the edge! The 2000 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares was the most structured 2000 red Burg I tried on release and it still has good grip. There are pretty red and black fruits and a strong scent of violets. It is full and round and quite delicious and was one of the best drinks of the night, with plenty left to give mind you. The 1992 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares was marred by just a whiff of wet hessian tca. The wine poured out well looking immensely fresh in the glass. It had some meaty notes and a cool heart and some quite delicious fresh berry flavours. Sadly I just couldn’t get around the cork taint as there was an outstanding wine there. The 1982 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares was terrific. The nose had plenty of sweet meat, leather and black tea aromas. In the mouth it was sweet, full and vinous with an engaging savoury edge. There was still good grip to the finish and the wine was fresh and ethereal. I am not a huge fan of the 2003 vintage but last year I loved the 2003 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares. Tonight’s bottle reinforced that this is one of the very best wines of the vintage. It has plenty of sweet cedar, dried flowers, licorice and cherry fruit on the nose. It has a heart of liqueur cherry and some cooler mint things countering all of the ripeness. It is dense with chewy tannins that freshen up the back-end. This is a 50 year wine that should be superb when it eventually reaches its apogee.

The second bracket kicked off with the 2006 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares. It had just a touch of animale to the aroma along with some higher perfume notes of violets. In the mouth it was compact, dense and linear with chalky structure. I have had better bottles of the 2001 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares. There was a shot of espresso to the aroma profile that indicated slight oxidation. There were also compost, funky smells going on. It certainly was a powerful wine with loads of meaty flavor and good structure but detail was slightly blurred. The 1999 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares was the darkest coloured wine of the night and the most intense and deep, although it was quite bretty. There’s a lot of equine action with some sweaty saddle. It had remarkable depth of sweet cherry fruit and is still quite primary. It screams of a wine in need of plenty of more time although I hope the brett doesn’t take hold of the wine. The 2005 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares was actually sweet, perfumed and elegant. It has the beautiful balance of the vintage and the fruits have a paisley quality to them with loads of pomegranate, cranberry and cherry. Tannins are sweet, spherical and supportive and as delicious as this is today you just know it will be sublime in 20 or 30 years. I thought the 2008 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares may have just out-powered the 05, something I cannot remember ever saying about any other wine when I have seen a 2005 and 2008 side by side. It has a luminescent, bright feel with red and black fruits. There is a delicious floral spice weaving through the flavor profile and there is real depth of flavor. It finishes with bright, minerally crunch and length of flavor is outstanding. The 2002 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares was pretty close to wine of the night for mine. It had such a complex nose of cassis, sweet cedar, dried flowers, blood and earth. It was dense and layered in the mouth with great depth and a sensual velvety feel. It had such great proportion and poise and length was fabulous.

Chateau d’Yquem was our blind Sauternes and we were given 1988, 1989 and 1990 as the options. Big G told us that he was shipping quite a bit of Yquem into Australia in the early 90’s, bringing 768 cases of the 1990 in. It didn’t help him, nor most of the rest of the table identifying the 1990 as most of us plumped for the 1988. This was an outstanding bottle of 1990 Chateau d’Yquem. It had complex aromatics of honey, lavender, spiced pear and apricot. In the mouth it was rich and intense yet had good detail and great freshness. It really built through the palate and finished with great authority and vitality.

The rules of Monday Table have been amended and we no longer have to finish with a Nacional. Paul put up a pretty interesting V.P to close proceedings none the less. The 1927 Gould Campbell Vintage Port was bottled in Melbourne in October 1929 by Mathew Cluny and Co. It had some interesting tertiary earthy, seaweed notes. There were some raison and Christmas cake aromas and flavours and the spirit had a slightly raw, Armagnac like feel.

A big thanks to Paul for organizing such a terrific night.

Cheers
Jeremy

Wow Jeremy! What a fantastic line-up! Can’t go wrong with Leflaive and Roumier. Agreed that Roumier Bonnes Mares does indeed fall in the upper echelon of burgundy.

Was another great night, just got back home…will add some impressions later on!

Great notes Jeremy. Looks like nearly all these wines are true to vintage at the highest level. I remember buying the 1999 for about US$150 now these are near impossible to get. The 2004 certainly sounds it was made for Stuart, a good match for his Rousseau Chambertin. Cheers Mike

That’s one hell of a Monday Table! Thanks for all the reference points.

awesome reference points - thanks!!

How long should I wait for my unique 2008 BM Roumier? Taking into account the French usually like teir wines a bit younger than the Brits.

Antoine - this is a long term proposition I would have thought. A wine for your children (or grandchildren).

Wow. Awesome stuff.
Thanks for the write up.
Nice wines.

I would wait at least 20 years.

Truly awesome, Jeremy. Had never thought about moving to Australia before reading your note.

Cheers,
Doug

Ok,

The 2 Champagnes were brilliant, lovely and stylish, the '98 drinking well now but still quite young, the '96 now on the path to maturity, richer and deeper, a champagne that should last for many years yet.

Loved the Leflaives, a very good, even bracket.

The '01 was again very good, rich and almost Montrachet like now, drinking at peak and a great, consistent wine. The '02 was a very good bottle, fresh and young looking (some though it was the '08). The '08 opened well, but the touch of caramel it developed was a bit worrying. On the way to premoxing? The '09 was simply brilliant - long with a great Chevalier drive and with a long way to go yet…

The Roumiers were a bracket I had been putting together for a long while. They generally needed much more time, still it was extremely informative to see them in a lineup like this.

Loved the '82, a great wine. The '92 would have been a star if not for the tough of taint. The '93 needed much more time, the '00 made us all wish we cellared more '00’s - very good wine indeed. The '04 was horrible and green, with the '03 perhaps the best '03 I have had…very good.

The next bracket was very strong. The '99 was a bit bretty, but I liked it, it was big and black and totally stacked. The '05 was a star, and my favorite wine, but quite pretty and red, almost atypical for what I would have expected and it was quite open. The '08 was also very, very good - perhaps the best '08 I have had, whilst the '01 was disappointing. The '02 was a stunning wine that needs a lot, lot more time - dark, layered and deep, still very grippy. The '06 was ok, but not special, a bit forgettable in the lineup.

The Yquem was great, a very fresh bottle of '90 with good line, and the food at Ezard was again a good, interesting match that made for another great night!

amazing story well-told.

The 2004 G.Roumier Bonnes Mares is greener than Kermit the frog. It is all celery, tinned green bean and coriander leaf on the nose. There is some up front sweetness to the palate but then it clamps down hard leading to a shrill finish. I’m donating my last remaining bottle to Stuart Niemtzow, it will send him right over the edge!

No thanks. This was the wine and the estate (with the helpful insights of Christophe Roumier) which , in spring 2007, convinced me of the 2004 plague. And, I thought the BM was the least affected. It took me a while to sell my cache of Roumier 2004.

Almost any of the other 18 wines you guys analyzed…would be preferable…though your note on the 2004 was the most evocative for me.

When I read Paul Hannah’s post, I get the impression that you should drink Roumy’s BM when young since 2005 and 2008 were the bests?..

Not sure what you mean here???

Only an older wine can be the best in a tasting?

No Paul, Nigel told me the wine should wait for my grand children, Jeremy for at least 20 years and I thought “but Paul seems to have enjoyed it a lot with 6 years of age”. Certainly not a criticism.
Just a remark saying that, although wines can have bad periods (closed), they can be delicious at a young age, even a Roumier Bonnes Mares. Or were you only talking about potential?

Anyone had the 96 BM recently? I’m assuming that based on the vintage and typical roumier BM ageing profile it needs at least another decade.

Ah, ok, now I get it…

Yes, some of the younger wines had formidable grip, and all will probably need a lot of time still (the '02 maybe another 20 years plus, ditto the '99, and maybe even the '93), I would suggest that maybe some of the younger wines (say '05 on?) are made in a more modern style, perhaps allowing them to show better younger now than they used to prior to '05(?) - ala Faiveley or De Vogue and their style change from around 2007 on as an example. In that context, some of the younger wines were better “drinks”.

Perhaps someone who has more young Roumier’s than me can chime in here, and from memory I think Jeremy said something about a 2010 (2011??) Cras?? was drinking very well recently.

So yes, they mostly had considerable potential, and some were also very enjoyable and delicious!


I must say though that I have found a few '05’s (as an example) recently to be far more open than I would have expected…we have seen several at the table that people have confused with '06, and I would have bet money that this '05 was an '06 the other night as well (it was very red fruited, perfumed and open).


I think for me anyway that judging ultimate quality of a very young wine, whilst difficult (and bound to really only be a best guess anyway) can still be very useful - a bit like how I see drinking 2010 Burgs. They are very closed now, and are no doubt built for the long haul, but I can and have enjoyed them immensely since release, and this is mostly because I can appreciate how great they are now, as their underlying material, perfect balance and structure is just so good…and they can be also be delicious.