I have been thinking about this for awhile, and it’s an interesting topic for me.
I think in recent years we’ve found Burgundy even at the grand cru level to be more accessible early, especially in less structured vintages like 2017 and 2021.
That being said, there has been an emergence of new producers, many of which have been making wine in less heralded winemaking regions, such as William Kelley (although he does also make 1er and grand cru wines), Guilbert Gillet, with their strong focus on Savigny, Jerome Galeyrand, with his best wines being from the cote de nuits villages, Koji, and Camille Thieret among others.
While these producers have different inspiration and mentors, as well as different principles for both viticulture and winemaking, their wines in general tend to offer a lot of immediate pleasure and often transcend their terroir in terms of their depth, harmony and balance.
The combination of small production and social media hype has generally led to extremely high pricing in the secondary market compared to traditional producers, and often led more experienced wine drinkers to eschew these wines, which to me is a mistake. I don’t think the wines are particularly comparable to Bourgogne or village wines from traditional producers, because many of those wines are an afterthought for those producers, while these producers are using the same, or indeed more innovative techniques in the vineyard and winery on in many cases their relatively humble holdings as top producers are using on their grand crus.
While we don’t have a long term track record on these wines, I’m not sure many are designed for long term aging with the exception of the higher level WK wines. I’m not really sure how this will change things in burgundy but it does reinforce the basic truth that the producer is the most important factor for Burgundy.
Thanks for starting the discussion. All the new producers are new to me. I was lucky to get Jerome Galeyrand’s reds but only 1 bottle here and 2 bottles there. I also bought a few bottles of his whites which are still available but also 1 bottle in this store and 2 or 3 bottles in the other stores.
So far I have not open any of his wines yet. His name caught my eyes when I saw his CdV 2023 was flying off the shelves despite released at very high price : $706.75.
How is it a mistake to eschew wines priced 2x to 10x the price of equivalent wines from established producers? If WK wines, or those of a dozen other newer up and comers were priced the way new producer’s wines used to be, most of us would be happy to buy or try them. Even the next generation of long established producers, going out on their own are pricing like they are established top tier (thinking of the new Boillot wines).
It’s a smaller problem alongside the bigger problem of burgundy in general having priced itself out of reach for all but a few who are able, or willing, to buy at those prices. But it also accelerates the trend, when established domaines see what young pups are getting.
I agree. I love Burgundy but it’s always a splurge relative to my income. I’m not going spend anywhere near some of those prices for a producer that lacks track record. I’d much rather spend the money experiencing benchmark producers with a long history, especially early in my wine life.
I think it’s a mistake because the wines ARE often that good.
I said earlier that I thought the 2022 William Kelley Bourgogne Vielles Vignes showed better than the 2017 DRC RSV opened at the same time. Yes that’s the same wine @Mark_Golodetz said wasn’t worth $100.
I also thought the 2022 William Kelley Gevrey Chambertin aux Etelois showed better than the 1999 Rousseau CSJ and beze.
Will they be as good in the long run? Probably not, but one the particular day they were opened, they were better.
The 2023 Galeyrand Cotes de Nuits villages Les Retraits was a tour de force when we opened it a couple weeks ago. I’d certainly prefer it to most 2023 grand crus at the moment. People trying to argue that run of the mill village wines are comparable are just deceiving themselves, there’s no comparison. These are wines that are absolutely lights out for current drinking. I’m not sure if they’ll age, but don’t particularly care, because of how good they are right now.
I think its pretty clear that Michael aimed this at me, and I think it’s an interesting area for debate. But the problem is that I have only tasted one of the wines, and to put it bluntly, I was underwhelmed. Kelley’s Bourgogne 2022, was a perfectly nice wine now, but nothing special. I tasted the 2022 Chevillon NSG Cailles a couple of days before, and it was a much more interesting wine.Going for $1500 plus, I can only think there is a lot more going on besides what is the bottle. To me, it’s hype on hype, and a ludicrous waste of money.
That it. I have not tasted any of the young Turks Michael has mentioned, but here is the logic I use so that I don’t have to spend several hundred dollars trying them. I love Savigny, I think it is capable of producing very good wine even great wine. I have three or four cases of mixed Ecard premier crus for midweek wines. The best I ever had was his Savigny Narbontons 1993. I loved the wine, but it is well below most Cote de Nuits from the same year. There is an absolute limit to what a winemaker can do with a Savigny.
The French recognized this when the codified the wines. Maybe global warming has allowed winemakers to go beyond the logic, but I do taste a lot of Savignys and can’t say I have seen anything except increased opulence and richness, mostly at the expense of acidity.
One assertion that I did not particularly like was that winemakers ignored their basic Bourgognes. I have been in many cellars, and I can say without exception, they are immensely proud of those wines. In fact, a couple of winemakers judge you by how quickly you want to move on up the scale and ignore the Bourgognes.
I’ll bite since I was at this tasting.
What do you mean by “showed better”?
I really liked the WK. But to me didn’t have the complexity of the RSV wines (any of them). Depth wasn’t there. But the WK was very satisfying and easy to appreciate. The transparency stood out. The WK and Grillet were comparable in that sense. But neither had the depth or complexity the RSV’s.
I think that’s really your argument-- Can these dedicated focused producers, who really spend a lot of energy on farming create wine that qualitatively rivals the most famous sites in burgundy? The GC’s are famous for a reason, but I think I would agree with the premise that less famous sites can rival the best. But it’s an exception rather than a new rule. It’ll be interesting after 10yrs of bottle age if we feel the same about these “Instagram famous” producers.
Having tasted in the cellar with WK, and tasted a bunch of Gillet wines (5-6 or so different cuvees) - and around 20 btls of Koji Nakada, not mentioned here but probably fits - I find these statements by Michael very interesting to say the least. Also didnt find the same joy in a recent Gaylerand Retraits - great wine at the price (around 100 USD) but not more than that to me…
The wines are pretty, and often punch above their weight-class - but to me this is getting way too hyperbolic. Both the comparisons and the prices. Would be very interesting with a proper blind set-up =)
I thought it did have just as much depth as well as more purity of fruit and transparency as well as flavor, especially compared to the 17 RSV which had mid-palate hollowness. It didn’t have quite as much complexity or length on the finish, especially when compared to the 14 Hudelot or 17 confuron.
I tbink what it comes down to is what you value in wine. I think there’s no argument both of those wines showed much better compared to their potential than many of those RSV, as I said, with the exception of the 17 confuron and perhaps the 14 Hudelot. In 10 years will the drc and 10/14 confuron and Hudelot be better wines? Probably, but as I said in my first post there isn’t a track record yet.
Great topic with a lot to unpack. This has been simmering under the surface for a while — producers like Hubert Lamy, d’Auvenay / Leroy and Arnaud Ente demonstrated years ago what lower-level appellations are capable of when farmed at the highest level.
What we’re seeing now feels like a perfect storm: young talent without access to quality grand cru fruit, combined with bottle prices that can justify the cost of higher-density farming, severe yield reduction, farming without a traktor and top-tier cooperage at the village and regional level. As premier cru and grand cru land has become increasingly inaccessible (both through consolidation and stratospheric prices) ambitious producers have been forced to redirect that energy downward through the hierarchy.
These wines can absolutely compete on concentration, complexity, and length, but perhaps can’t by definition express singular terroir to the degree a grand cru does.
It’s exciting to witness a new generation of producers continuing to uncover the untapped potential of the most storied region in wine — one that will push the best of the old guard to keep raising their own bar across the appellation hierarchy, which optimistically means more accessible great wines for all of us to drink.
This I’ll agree with 100%. Something the “new” school does very well. The harder question is does the”old school” garland cru develop this with time or does it have to be present at the outset? I do not know the answer.
The wine you eschewed from William Kelley was aged for 18 months in 100% new oak; I’m not aware of other winemakers giving their Bourgogne this level of treatment.
As I said earlier, I found the wines to be better than some top grand crus in certain circumstances, at least for current drinking. In no way did I say that they are always better wines, but they certainly were on the days they were opened.
I mean you’ll notice I didn’t compare the wk Bourgogne to the 17 Rousseau we opened earlier that day which were clearly better. Those wines had the same intensity of flavor, transparency, and density of fruit, with more complexity,
The terroir versus winemaking argument is sort of ancillary to this but perhaps also relevant.
At the Paulee gala I had three reds from Leroy, a 59 Grands Echezeaux, a 64 Grands Echezeaux, and a bottle of 93, which at the time I didn’t get the vineyard or village of. They all tasted like Leroy. In fact, I thought the 93 was the best of the three. I found out later it was a pommard vignots. All three were fabulous wines but much more Leroy than where they’re from. There’s definitely a lot of winemaking in the “new burgundy” as well, but I don’t get as much producer over village signature from WKs wines. Especially his own vineyards in Beaune demonstrate terroir very well imo.
I have not tasted these new producers. But I have been following the Burgundy scene for 30+ years and I would say there is very little left of “the old guard” now. With warmer vintages, lower extraction, less protection with SO2, wines mature faster and are less deep than before. Angerville and de Montille are not what they used to be, for example, and in general there is less intense, precise red fruit in the wines compared to yesteryear. Modern Burgundy are becoming lush, rich and pleasant in an immediate way that to me is less interesting and satisfying than what “the old guard” used to make. The way you describe these newcomers seem to align with my impression of the old guard as it has become since about 2009/2015. Global warming is part of the picture, but also a willed attempt at softness. The white wines seem to adapt much better to the rise in temperature which confirms my impression that fashion is behind the lamentable change in style, which to me is detoriation.
I think all burgundy is becoming more accessible earlier, but my argument is that the “new guard” is making village wines like older producers are making grand crus, but they’re also accessible much earlier.
