Steven,
I see the character in many reds, am sensitive to it but it does not bother me as much as some people. If it does not dominate the wine I think it adds a little freshness and vitality.
Cheers
Jeremy
Not to belabor this point…again…but saying “If it does not dominate the wine” presumes that the “wine” is what’s determining the experience, rather than the people’s sensitivities. We all presume, I think, “the wine” is as we find it. (Of course, for those of us who find the stuff objectionable…it is , of course, “the wine”. ![[training.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/d0f39866e5714408d7091b0bd2d7bb764d7bb973.gif "[training.gif]"){kind=small}
) That’s why I think this red vintage is really flawed.
Now, on to the whites…and combine that issue with the premox…and what a mess in 2004…though that 2004 Forest seems on the road to greatness as of an hour ago when I got home…from the office.
Jeremy,
That’s what I thought, but couldn’t quite remember. I think my assessment is similar. I don’t find it an entirely negative component of the wines (dare I say I sort of like it in many instances?). Do you like the component in the whites? By your description in the opening post, it doesn’t sound necessarily like a bad thing (fennel seed/celery) as a secondary component.
Steve
Steven, I really like aniseed and fennel notes in Chardonnay, the notes that I’m starting to pick up on are a little more herbaceous but I still find them pleasant in the whites. The reds seem to have a bit more Schezuan pepper and root vegetable, mirepoix than the whites and also the reds have quinine like bitterness to the finish where the whites have a citrus/acid snap, coupled with a certain leanness.
Steven,
No. I and Paul H as I recall have been saying that the whites are too ripe and lack acidity that make them cloying. As you mentioned very tropical without minerality and acidity. It is interesting to note that the Chevalier Montrachets are far better than the Batards and the CCs.
“I therefore wonder if a critic misses the 04s and the 06 whites, why still rely on the critic’s opinion? In all fairness, I realized that the 04s didn’t show any greenness in the barrel.”
With most prominent critics (John Gilman is the exception) never reassessing the wines (and their initial reviews) over time, ostensibly because their plates are too full reviewing current releases, it seems that those reviews, those initial “snapshots”, are less than reliable as guides to buying. It is unfortunate that many of us do not have the opportunities to taste these wines ourselves prior to having to commit to them. Not that many of us, myself definitely included, would necessarily be able to pick up these flaws upon tasting from the barrel or early on in the bottle. Nevertheless, critics reassessing these wines and vintages over time would save us from backfilling at auction or at retail based on initial reviews that in retrospect are unreliable. Not to beat the premox dead horse, but God help the buyer who stocks up on some 2002 Fevre’s at auction based on those stellar reviews, unaware that the premox incidence, at least in my experience, was through the roof. The critics are silent, and if it wasn’t for forums like this, the cautionary word would not be out there.
I think that, not only are their “plates” full, but they depend on good will for access to the domaines they visit to make their livelihoods. So, reassessing something that is almost guaranteed to win no friends at the domaines is a losing proposition for them.
Just opened some wines to get ready for a large dinner at our place…threw in 2 '04’s for a bit of a look…
'04 Fevre Clos - Touch of what I thought was bitter green on the finish after the first initial mouthful, but I think this was just me being paranoid…lots of honey and spice, with just a slight citric hint that in no way seems to affect the wine…will report back later after it has had a few hours to open before we drink it…one small comment, it doesn’t exactly look classically “chablis” though…
'04 Fontaine Gagnard Batard Montrachet - much as I don’t really love this producer, his wines sometimes look pretty good, and this does. Rich, powerful spice, very nice. No real green thing here at all, in fact blind I doubt I’d get to the vintage…Which, if I remember correctly, exactly happened a few months ago, when I called a FG '04 Montrachet as an '02…another small comment, a bit richer and more forward than I expected…
This was only a quick run through on opening, will make some more detailed (mental) notes later tonight…
“I think that, not only are their “plates” full, but they depend on good will for access to the domaines they visit to make their livelihoods. So, reassessing something that is almost guaranteed to win no friends at the domaines is a losing proposition for them.”
Yes, another reason why they are of only limited value.
If they are not free to be critical when that is called for, then they are cheerleaders and not critics.
Great comment. ![[dance-clap.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/835ce082e2fa9c96c4b7f96406bf6e9a0db882ff.gif "[dance-clap.gif]"){kind=small}
I might have to steal this for my sig…
For my palate, 04 reds at their worst have tasted like ditch-water. At their best, they are middle-weight, herb-infused wines that have a little room to improve, but lack the stuffing to show greatness in the long-term. I would surprised if they were very good in the medium-term, but I will concede the possibility to more experienced Burgundy-apologists. All I can say is, in short, this is the Burg-vintage I would least like to own of the 21st century so far, not because the bottom is so low, but that the top is so limited.
Again, for my palate, the wintry crisp notes of 04 whites are appealing. I haven’t had many oxidized wines in 04, so I mostly accept the wines as they show. I would love 04 to be another 93. Too bad it ain’t. Still, for those who remember when ageing and approachability were spread apart on the drinking curve, 04 looks good! (So does 08.)
Terrfic and somewhat still closed at dinner last night, but really really nice wine. This morning it is complete…oyster shells, long finish, a little lactic even, deep and delicious, with a hint of mint. I don’t usually touch Dauvissat wines before they are a decade old, but…this is a great experience. And the finish won’t stop on this wine. (When these wines really hit their strides, they are marvels, IMO; and, they almost always need the aeration to really hit them; early on it was delicious with pineapples and honey, but today…it is so much more harmonious and even regal…both are enjoyable, but…)
I have a Sauzet Truffieres or a Carillon Puligny villages on tap for tonight. Have to decide soon.
I had the 2004 Dauvissat Forest yesterday as well. No problems. Still much too early, but unfortunately my wife and I have no problem finishing a bottle so I don’t know how much better it could have been after a day.
I am always curious…and do it almost every time I open a wine. With the whites, particularly of Burgundy, it’s almost always more complete the next day , which is frustrating and mind-boggling. The reds are more difficult to generalize about.
All of them will have a first blast for a half-hour to a couple of hours when they are open, but then they all seem to retreat into a shell and , with aeration, come out the other side amazingly better and more “complete”. But, I usually find the potential of a red wine in its first 5 minutes of opening…oddly…I know “it’s there” at that point; the issue is how to get it to reveal its charms.
Jeremy, I think our take on 2004 white is similar. Like you, I feel these notes can add to the experience if they are not dominant. To my (yak’s) nose & palate they express themselve more as a green pea / snow pea note than what you describe though anise seed would be a welcome nuance here.
Jim,
I understand what your saying. While I could be considered an '04-apologist, even I have concerns about their longevity. It’s not just the lack of stuffing, but I think many of them I’ve tasted are developing some dried out qualities on the finish. However, since I have enjoyed them young, I plan to drink most of them in the near term while other vintages are maturing.
Steve
FWIW, there is nothing wrong with ditch water per se, it all depends on what’s upstream.
-Al
Had a Sauzet '04 Puligny-Truffiere last night…and this morning. Though it took some real searching (and help from another who couldn’t put a good descriptor on it other than “phenols”/ "chemicals), I think I found the same off-putting stuff I smelled in the 2004 reds, though much more subtly than in the reds. Peas and even some strong mints (though not the appealing kind) might be a good descriptor…and certainly, for me, the aroma was of dried herbs. and even that of a very “dusty”, though dry room…muting the charm of the wine. The wine was very short on the finish…everything disappeared quickly…and not totally unpleasant, though…odd. Plenty of Puligny class; not at all generous, though…and not unmarked by the 2004 character, especially on the nose. I think someone not looking for this character might just think that this wine had no generosity or pleasure potential, rather than a flaw.
The wine was a lot more pleasant the next morning when more of the fruit and slight honey came out…but…not enough to compensate.
I guess I’ll check out one more then: a Carillon Puligny villages…
Why do we keep drinking these wines when with some remarkable exceptions they are giving at best only modest pleasure, as is in fact normal for red burgundy at 6/7 years old(as indeed is what seems to be the appearance of ‘dried out’ qualities). It is possible that the wines will never come round, but continuous assessment is I feel entirely pointless.
Agreed. I got rid of my entire stock of 04 reds about 6 months ago as continued assessment was indeed pointless. 04 Red Burgundy sucks and no amount of age or continued assessment was necessary for me. Now the only question after this thread is do I need to dump the whites too? I’ll pull something this afternoon and report back.