We tasted these blind. I’m not a big fan of tasting multiple high end wines in a blind format. It saddens me to take all these great bottles, which on their own would be a highlight at any dinner, and pit them against each other. Rather than appreciate each bottle completely, I find myself nit-picking at the differences between the wines. It is also near impossible to spend enough time with each wine and see how it evolves. However, blind tasting was the call of the day, so that is what we did.
1990 Rousseau Chambertin: For me, this is fully mature. Browning at the rim. Full secondary flavors. Lots of earth, muddled red and black berries, and sous bois. Nice wine, but not the strongest example I’ve had.
1992 Rousseau Chambertin: The feather weight of the bunch. I love the top 92’s. Crunchy red fruits, medium bodied. Very fresh expression of fruit with a nice mineral streak.
1996 Rousseau Chambertin: I think this is going to be a legend one day. There is so much depth. Loads of dry extract stain the palate. It is somehow incredibly powerful while remaining elegant and precise. I loved it.
2001 Rousseau Chambertin: This is one of my favorite rousseau’s for current drinking. More friendly than the 96. Pure expression of red and blue fruits. Starting to enter maturity with more savory notes beginning to subdue the primary fruit.
2003 Rousseau Chambertin: I mixed this up with the 2006 in the blind tasting. Well balanced, but slightly hollow in the mid palate. A very slight perception of heat, but certainly not detrimental to the wine. More on the dark fruit spectrum. I was expecting a hot goopy mess, but it was actually a nice wine if a little weak compared its peers.
2006 Rousseau Chambertin: Noticeably sweeter than the other wines. I have a feeling that it just due to youth and will integrate nicely with time, but at the tasting, it really stuck out to me. It feels like all the pieces are there, but needs some time in the cellar to come together. Wait on this one.
Nice notes on a nice event, Ryan. I had the '06 with the '76, '88 and '91 last year (non-blind) and it stuck out quit a bit then, too. I agree it seems to have the raw material to come around.
Thoughts on drinking window for the 2003? Sounds approachable now–much upside??
Thanks for the write up and data points foe the vintages.
Although Rousseau Chambertin may take a very long time to reach their peak they are often quite enjoyable while they are reaching the top unlike many others that do not offer such pleasure.
Though I think Rousseau Chambertins (and even the “lesser” grand crus there) really need 20 years to be fairly evaluated given expectations, I do “commend” that “only” six wines were in the tasting. To me, especially tasted blind, that is about as much as can really be appreciated in one event. (And, for me, 8 or so is maximum given my capabilities to appreciate multiple wines at an event…IF they have a clear theme , like these do. )
Did food eventually…or from the start…get into the mix of variables, too?
FWIW, I have loved many of the 1990 Rousseaus…some of the best Rousseaus I’ve experienced…but not the Chambertin itself the couple of times I’ve had them. Not sure why…the Mazy is, for me, the best vintage I’ve ever had there…and the Ruchottes very close to the best of vintages chez Rousseau.
a crazy day when I’ve had every wine Curry has listed .
I agree with your note on the 03, Dr. Kim opened one a couple years ago and I thought it’d be a hot mess but it wasn’t at all. You’d never guess 03 on the bottle.
The 06 must have closed up, remember when we had it 3 years ago? It was drinking excellent! So excellent we had two bottles .
Of course I remember Charlie. I think those bottles were better than this one. Needs time to come back out of its shell. Will probably be great when it does.
Good to hear about the '03, the only one I have a few of!
And I completely agree about the '91. It’s a great, great wine. Holding out on a lone bottle of '91 Beze.
I completely agree on the '01; had a bottle on Thanksgiving and it was sublime. Likely better 2-5 years out, but hard to argue with it now.
Side note (and not to hijack), but when are the 1996’s going to be ready to drink?!? Not just Chambertin, of course (I have no Rousseau, only a Bouree), but anything? I can think of two that I’ve enjoyed in the past 5 years: a Mugneret-Gibourg Vosne-Romanee about 4 years ago and a Prieur Musigny last year. The rest have shown a range of “issues” – usually some edge or harshness. I’m now saving the remaining stock for at least two more years and crossing the fingers, but one has to wonder if they’ll ever really reach the promised land…
Awesome notes. Regrettably I’ve only had one Rousseau Chambertin: the '93. May well have been the best wine I’ve ever had. Didn’t hurt that I got to enjoy it over several hours, at Troisgros, for ~200 Euro, on my honeymoon. It was way too young but awe-inspiring.
I’ve had quite a few 96s that I really liked. Had a 96 Rousseau Beze last year that was GLORIOUS (two years before, the bottle I had was hard as nails). 96 Hudelot Noellat suchot/beaumonts were really good and same as Mongeard Mugneret Echezeaux in the past year. Georges Lignier CDLR out of mag was outstanding after a hour or so (three months ago). Last 3 btls of 96 jadot CSJ have been pretty damn good too.
Thanks for that, Charlie – encouraging. Piqued the interest with the H-Ns – I need to check back in on them. Here’s some of my CT drivel from 2011 on a Suchots…
A bit wayward. Morphed quite a bit over the course of the evening but there was always something a little off on the palate – for a while it was a big hole in the mid-palate. Fairly abrupt and harsh on the finish for much of the bottle. Aromatics quite a bit better overall – some pretty interesting notes of earth, licorice, etc. from time to time. Bottle was in great shape and there’s no rush to get through them; just wonder if and to what extent they improve from here.
.
.