and also excitement too as in my view as enjoyment of burgundy is a very complex subject, specially due to recent climate change and change is the preference of the customers - for example, as I am getting mature, my taste bud change …for better or worse.
I agree with what Zachgoldstein posted - Bravo.
Must sting to be on this list. 1 Sour Grape?
Honorably mentions:
Côte de Nuits
Domaine Berthaut-Gerbet
Sylvain Pataille
Domaine Felettig
Domaine Camille Thiriet
Benoit Chevallier
Charles Audoin
Fourrier
Hubert Lignier
Côte de Beaune
Domaine Jobard-Morey
Anne Boisson
Ballot-Millot
Buisson-Charles
Camille & Guillaume Boillot
Pierre Boisson
Pierre Girardin
Pierre Morey
Alex Moreau
Ramonet
Vincent Dancer
Jacques Carillon
Thomas-Collardot
Albert Bichot
Bouchard Père & Fils
Bachelet-Monnot
Nicolas Perrault
Alain Gras
Joseph Colin
Lafouge
Pierre Guillemot
Rapet
Yvon Clerget
expanding on my rant…
For me, the Michelin guide restaurant list attempts to capture the concept of effort - how much effort should one put into dining at a particular restaurant? Effort entails much more than the cost of the meal itself: it involves time, planning, potentially greater travel-related expenses, and likely more. It is not about which ones are necessarily the best restaurants or most expensive (though the ones you should put effort going to and the best ones are probably highly correlated) but the ones which will be worth the journey. A consumer likely believes the Michelin guide because they believe the guide raters have taste and that the restaurants, especially those deemed worth the most effort, consistently provide a good experience (important if you are going to make a special journey for a singular experience).
You can ask a similar question of wine: which bottles of wine are worth greater effort to seek out, acquire, and open? I think this is a fine, and differentiating, discussion separate from QPR or “Grail” wine or “best of” lists. My framework for constructing a list like this would be different than the others and I think it is a good framing for a list. I am not sure this is the framing Michelin used in constructing the Grapes list. Yes, the idea of consistency runs through both the Michelin restaurant list and the Grapes list, but I am not sure it goes beyond that. I believe it is this deficiency that makes the list not sit well for me.
BUT…how about looking in another way : it also good for their new venture business - Michelin Grape Guild.
Hubert Lamy be like…
This will just push wines that had already tripled and quadrupled in price over a decade to double or triple again.
Biggest burn: Alex Moreau got a mention while his brother got 2 stars. 
This struck me as well. Michelin has always been an indicator of quality and service, both things that are controllable by proprietor and staff. Winegrowing and winemaking are subject to the vagaries of vintage, weather, some luck. Things out of control of the grower.
But in the end, all this does is raise attention for Michelin, and prices for the wines it ranks highly. There is nothing about this that is good for the consumer. And we have yet to see how it will impact those estates not mentioned.
“Premier ne puis, troisième ne daigne, Rousseau suis.”
“First I cannot be, third I do not deign to be, Rousseau I am."
Maybe Michelin see’s this ranking of producers as an attribute for their restaurant rankings? For instance, you can’t be a 3 star restaurant if your wine list doesn’t have any 3 grape producers on it. Or in ranking between 1 and 2 star restaurants if there is a tie does the nod go to the restaurant that has more listed producers?
I was surprised by this as well. Discussing the Moreau bros with WK last year, I swear he said he preferred farming/winemaking practices of Alex. But maybe I got it backwards
I think so.
Indeed this is a head scratcher, and the brothers are not exactly on the best of terms, so Alex must be fuming.
Interesting take as always Peter.
Regarding Gevrey bottlings, I wouldn’t buy the Rousseau because it can be a very average wine that is still very expensive. But I wouldnmt buy the Dugat-Py wine either because it tastes much more like Dugat-Py to me and not very much like Gevrey. Just my opinion, but I can see why Dugat-Py received it’s three cluster place as, to me, the winemaking there is overwhelmingly exceptional.
I definitely can see how Rousseau got dinged. I have only really been impressed with the Chambertin and CSJ. So many of their wines are average.
I keep coming back to your point about temporality because I think it’s where this list starts to make less and less sense for me.
With restaurants, the Michelin Guide is designed to be refreshed every year. Restaurants can earn stars, lose stars, or maintain them based on what inspectors experience today. Many of the biggest quality levers are directly under the restaurant’s control: the chef, the staff, sourcing, the menu, execution, and even the dining room. If they make meaningful improvements, those improvements can show up almost immediately in the next guide. “Restaurant leveled up their tasting menu and service” turning into an extra star isn’t uncommon.
Wineries don’t really work that way to my understanding. A producer has to contend with weather, disease pressure, and temperature and vintage variation, and many of the most important vineyard decisions won’t fully reveal themselves for years. Even stylistic changes in the cellar often take multiple vintages before you can judge whether they were successful.
So what exactly is Michelin trying to measure here? Is this intended to be a living, annually updated ranking like the restaurant guide? Or is it closer to a long-term reputation ranking that only changes once a decade?
The descriptors make that even less clear. “Regardless of vintage” versus “particularly successful in the best vintages” sounds like they’re evaluating many years of performance rather than current form. If that’s the case, it’s a very different exercise than the Michelin restaurant guide, where the expectation is that stars can move relatively quickly as quality changes.
I don’t necessarily object to ranking producers - I just don’t know that the Michelin framework translates particularly well to wine.
Oh, I could see this. Just another way to create demand and justify high prices.
All of it is kind of depressing. There are so many wines I no longer buy or drink that used to be accessible. Some may have been a splurge, but they weren’t out of reach as something I could enjoy once in a while - and didn’t feel guilt about drinking. More and more wines have crossed the threshold into territory I’m not willing to enter. I feel most for younger wine geeks who may never experience some of these wines, at least not on a regular basis.
Another thing I’m struggling with is what Michelin is actually rating. Is it the producer’s skill, or the wines themselves?
If a domaine makes a mediocre Bourgogne but a spectacular Ruchottes-Chambertin because that’s where they’re pouring more of their attention, how does that get evaluated? What if a producer makes extraordinary Bourgogne, village, and premier cru wines but simply doesn’t own any grand cru vineyards? Is there realistically a path to three grapes, or is there sort of an implicit ceiling based on holdings?
One of the things I appreciate about the restaurant guide is that every restaurant is, in theory, playing the same game. In Burgundy to my understanding, terroir is such a dominant input that it’s difficult to separate the quality of the producer from the quality of the land they’re fortunate enough to have access to.
Yes, Bouley was granted 3 grapes and to my limited knowledge only make Bourgogne, village and 1er cru wines.
Are you able to provide examples? I am noticing a lot more Instagram posts on JMT Bouley and I suspect his 2023s now have lower availability (e.g. 2023 Fremier) but it seems like an ocean of his 2020s still out there (e.g. Fremier & Cailleret)