TN: 1991 Domaine Georges Mugneret/Mugneret-Gibourg Nuits St. Georges 1er Cru Les Chaignots

  • 1991 Domaine Georges Mugneret/Mugneret-Gibourg Nuits St. Georges 1er Cru Les Chaignots - France, Burgundy, Côte de Nuits, Nuits St. Georges 1er Cru (12/29/2011)
    jeweled ruby. Noce sous bois, and some darker pinot fruit, with some bloody meat and savory herbal- forest floor all mixed up with a Vosne-like spice to it. There is a cool mix of structure with what on one hand you expect to be a little rough around the edges style, that pulls it back with some almost polished baking spice- cardamom, nutmeg and floral tones. I like what this maker does on the Vosne side of NSG. They really capture the best of both appelations. The tannins are resolved to the perfect place for me, This is an interesting, relatively complex wine that has enough layers to get your attention. I really enjoy the mix of the earthy and spice-perfume sides of pinot. For my palate this is at peak. Really enjoyable. 91 pts (91 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

Thanks for the note Todd. Great description. As I recall, this is the largest holding of the domaine.

Todd, thanks for the note. I had the 09 of this recently, my first bottle ever from the domaine. It was a great wine which I hope will take on some of the characters above. Certainly a wine I will keep buying. Cheers Mike

Thanks for the note - many nice 1991’s Red Burgs IMO nice to here about this one. Bought a small load of the 2008 GM/MG (including this one) from this producer.

'09s aside, which in my humble view all seem to show well (though somewhat cookie-cutter) at this stage, Mugneret-Gibourg Chaignots is a wine to age for a while, which this TN seems to bear out. An '06 about a year ago was a beast at the 5 year stage, though should be quite nice about 2020.

The 2000 is a consistently magnificent bottle of wine and has been for the last 2-3 years. The 01, however, is definitely not ready.

Hi Folks,

One thing to keep in mind with the Mugneret sisters’ NSG Chaignots bottling is that the quality has marched up rather dramatically for this bottling since the vintages of the late 1990s. The 1991 was a bit more “nobly rustic” out of the blocks than vintages of the Chaignots in the last decade or so, and therefore folks who have cellared this bottling from the vintages post-1998 should expect a wine a step or two up from the 1991 described above when they reach their apogees. Marie-Andree and Marie-Christine Mugneret seemed to have made a concerted effort to ratchet up their bottlings of Vosne AC and various Nuits bottlings around the 1998 vintage- with resounding success IMO. Some of this had to do with taking over responsibilities for the viticulture in the vineyards (several had been under mettayage agreements dating back from their father’s time, when he could not both take care of the vineyards and make the wines- being a full-time doctor in addition to his winemaking duties), and the domaine’s move back to 100% indigenous yeasts with the 1998 vintage seems to have really struck a chord with their various NSG bottlings. This change to a more polished and complete style is even more apparent in their other Nuits premier cru, their Vignes Rondes, than it is with the more Vosne-centric bottling of Chaignots. It has been many years since I last tasted the 1991 Chaignots, and would love to cross paths with it and see how it is faring (it sounds delicious). But, I have even higher expectations for the more recent vintages of Chaignots that I have in my cellar, as this is one bottling that I think has really made a move up the ladder of quality since 1998.

All the Best,

John

I think, John, it was a move made a bit earlier…Christine and her mother were particularly stung by Parker’s pronouncement, around 1996, particularly the '93s , were too “hard” (he wasn’t quite as euphamistic as your “nobly rustic”). Parker then downgraded his earlier scores. As many were made by Dr. Georges, they were quite hurt as well as concerned. Though they didn’t agree with Parker, they clearly listened to him and to other visitors whose opinions they solicited. Though the '95 and '96 vintages were not great tinkering vintages, they did try with them, too. (I always thought the Chaignots was excellent, even when Dr. Georges made it, and particularly in 1990; but their other wines, I think, motivated the change more so. Some were, unfortunately, a bit “hard”. They were among the less successful of the 1983s…though some were fine…and their 1988s were indeed a bit “hard”.) They certainly have found their niche/style. So, it was all for the good…and their control in the vineyards has much increased, too, which can’t hurt.

'91, to me, is a bit of an overrated vintage, IMO. I’ve almost never had wines I thought were “great”; Daniel Rion and Rousseau excepted. I think many people were turned off by the obvious character of 1990, much like many prefer 2001 to 2002. But, ultimately, for my tasted, the great concentration and depth of the more obvious vintages triumphs…and 1991, though a very small crop (millerandage) never has wowed me or really anyone I know.

Thanks for the note, Todd. I have a bottle of this downstairs, singing its siren song, “Drink me, drink me!” I might have to cave, based upon your note.

Hi Stuart,

My use of the term “nobly rustic” has nothing to do with the wines being hard or questionably balanced. If you prefer, perhaps the French term “sauvage” would be a closer synonym for what I meant by “nobly rustic”. The only thing “hard” about the Mugneret '93s was figuring out what the hell Robert Parker was talking about back then. He still is off base about the vintage- or at least unwilling to admit he completely missed the call on the '93s out of the blocks. Out of barrel the '93 Mugneret wines were beauitfully balanced, transparent and aromatically superb, with an abundance of black fruit and ripe, tangy acids and well-integrated tannins. If Monsieur Parker had managed to taste them out of barrel, he might have had a better feel for their true quality and potential. After their bottling they seriously shut down- like most everyone else’s wines in '93 that nailed the vintage- and they continue to evolve gracefully and at a snail’s pace. Trying to handicap a structured vintage like 1993 after the bottling and immediatly after shipping- as Monsieur Parker did back in the day- when the wines were shaken and impossible to taste- was a dubious methodology from the outset and not an avenue likely to shed much light on the vintage, IMO. Like many top examples of the vintage, the 1993 Mugneret wines remain too young to drink at the present time, but they are simply still buttoned up behind their well-balanced structures and will no doubt be splendid in the fullness of time. If one is not patient enough to wait for great classic vintages to evolve, there are always other vintages to focus on. But to question the overall balance and style of the Mugneret wines from this epoch based on the comments of Monsieur Parker’s tasting of the '93 wines right after shipping in 1995 is not fair to the Mugnerets, nor to folks here who respect your palate and experience with the wines of the region. Rather than reiterate what Monsieur Parker thought of the wines at the time, it would be more interesting if you let us know what you thought of them in 1995 and what you think of the Mugneret '93s today.

As far as the relative enthusiasm for the '90s and '91s in the market when the two vintages were released, I remember the 1990s being the much more wildly popular wines. As a merchant in those days, it was extremely difficult to sell the 1991s- even from folks like Rousseau, as the euphoria for the plush, seductive and opulent 1990s continued on unabated well into the selling season for the 1991 Burgundies. At least this was the case in the market here in NY at that time. The '90s were great out of the blocks and it was hard to champion the leaner, tougher and slightly green-edged 1991s when there was still a fair bit of 1990 red Burgundy around in the pipeline. It took the 1991s three or four years to start to blossom a bit in bottle- at which point folks started to look much more seriously at the vintage- or this was at least the case here in the NY market at that time. But, today, with the exception of Chambolle-Musigny, which was hit hard by hail in 1991 and nowhere near as successful as the other villages in the Cote de Nuits, I would much rather drink a 1991 than its corresponding 1990- from virtually anyone worthy of their mettier.

All the Best,

John

My use of the term “nobly rustic” has nothing to do with the wines being hard or questionably balanced. If you prefer, perhaps the French term “sauvage” would be a closer synonym for what I meant by “nobly rustic”. The only thing “hard” about the Mugneret '93s was figuring out what the hell Robert Parker was talking about back then. He still is off base about the vintage- or at least unwilling to admit he completely missed the call on the '93s out of the blocks. Out of barrel the '93 Mugneret wines were beauitfully balanced, transparent and aromatically superb, with an abundance of black fruit and ripe, tangy acids and well-integrated tannins. If Monsieur Parker had managed to taste them out of barrel, he might have had a better feel for their true quality and potential. After their bottling they seriously shut down- like most everyone else’s wines in '93 that nailed the vintage- and they continue to evolve gracefully and at a snail’s pace. Trying to handicap a structured vintage like 1993 after the bottling and immediatly after shipping- as Monsieur Parker did back in the day- when the wines were shaken and impossible to taste- was a dubious methodology from the outset and not an avenue likely to shed much light on the vintage, IMO. Like many top examples of the vintage, the 1993 Mugneret wines remain too young to drink at the present time, but they are simply still buttoned up behind their well-balanced structures and will no doubt be splendid in the fullness of time. If one is not patient enough to wait for great classic vintages to evolve, there are always other vintages to focus on. But to question the overall balance and style of the Mugneret wines from this epoch based on the comments of Monsieur Parker’s tasting of the '93 wines right after shipping in 1995 is not fair to the Mugnerets, nor to folks here who respect your palate and experience with the wines of the region. Rather than reiterate what Monsieur Parker thought of the wines at the time, it would be more interesting if you let us know what you thought of them in 1995 and what you think of the Mugneret '93s today.

Fair enough, John. (Though I don’t think of “rustic” as a compliment nor a style I’d seek out. But, I’ve never thought of the Mugneret wines as that anyway. In fact, since the daughters took over in 1988 they’'ve evolved to more and more finesse.

I tasted their '93s at the winery on July 4, 1996, with my wife and Christine and her mother. They were eager to know what I thought about them, and opened a couple that were in bottle: the Chaignots and the Ruchottes. They would have opened more, but…I think I discouraged that, as their waiting for my views made be feel a little uncomfortable. When the Chaignot was opened, I noted “coffee aroma; good acid and body, but “is there really enough fruit”? It was then that Christine took the bottle, put the cork back in and shook it like a pharmacist would, trying to make an elixir. She laughed and said her father always told them that was how to make a hard wine show something…and I’ve used that ever since. I then wrote “There’s fruit there, but not enough still?”. The Ruchottes was more expressive on the nose and had decent fruit, but I still questioned whether there was really enoought.” After the shake I found a “decent kernel of fruit, but still wondered if there was enough. After pondering it there, in front of everyone, for a pretty long time, I wrote that " I’m sure this really is excellent.” FWIW, John, I looked at the relatively few notes now on Cellar Trakcer, and they seem to find lots of structure and not much fruit. (I haven’t had any in the last 5 years, so …)

Ever since hearing about it as it was happening and tasting examples in the mid-90s, I have thought that 1993 hit some real highs, particularly in light of the horrid harvest conditions, but was very inconsistent and not that great on the Cote de Beaune. I still think that, and think it is only a really good vintage when viewing the “highest highs”. Some people really didn’t do too well
. /b]



As far as the relative enthusiasm for the '90s and '91s in the market when the two vintages were released, I remember the 1990s being the much more wildly popular wines. As a merchant in those days, it was extremely difficult to sell the 1991s- even from folks like Rousseau, as the euphoria for the plush, seductive and opulent 1990s continued on unabated well into the selling season for the 1991 Burgundies. At least this was the case in the market here in NY at that time. The '90s were great out of the blocks and it was hard to champion the leaner, tougher and slightly green-edged 1991s when there was still a fair bit of 1990 red Burgundy around in the pipeline. It took the 1991s three or four years to start to blossom a bit in bottle- at which point folks started to look much more seriously at the vintage- or this was at least the case here in the NY market at that time. But, today, with the exception of Chambolle-Musigny, which was hit hard by hail in 1991 and nowhere near as successful as the other villages in the Cote de Nuits, I would much rather drink a 1991 than its corresponding 1990- from virtually anyone worthy of their mettier.

Vive la difference, as “they” say! I have really become more and more wowed by the 1990 vintage: had a Vosne Chaumes from Rion Monday and was really charmed…I do think 1991 always seemed good, if not really more than that. The extremly low yields made up for many other lackings. I’ve just never been wowed by any…save for the Rousseau Chambertins. 1990 has a much better batting average…in my mind. [cheers.gif]

Happy 2012…

Stuart

ps. I recently bought a couple of the Zalto Burgundy glasses. I had a Bordeaux glass for a y ear and a half that someone gave me, but it broke. I am really wowed by the Zalto Burgundy glass. Ridiculously overpriced, but…it focuses the aromatics and the wine hits the palate just right, I think. Anybody else have experience? You, John?

Hi Stuart,

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the Zalto Bugundy glasses:

“I recently bought a couple of the Zalto Burgundy glasses. I had a Bordeaux glass for a y ear and a half that someone gave me, but it broke. I am really wowed by the Zalto Burgundy glass. Ridiculously overpriced, but…it focuses the aromatics and the wine hits the palate just right, I think. Anybody else have experience? You, John?”

I do not currently own any of their glasses for the reasons you stated above regarding price, but use them regularly at a few friends’ homes in Germany, who have stepped up to the plate for the glasses. They really are refined and precise stemware and wines seem to simply taste better out of them than any other glasses that I have used regularly. Was hoping Zalto might want to outfit a wine writer with the whole range for all of the positive publicity that would engender :slight_smile: In terms of the vintages we were discussing, I have plenty of 1993s we can pop together once they get where they are going- including the Mugnerets’ Ruchottes-Chambertin, but my supply is not quite deep enough to be popping them before they reach their peaks. I opened a magnum of the Mugneret Feusselottes '93 for Christmas dinner last year and completely wasted the wine- it was still a good decade away from peak drinking in magnum, but still to my mind, very, very promising. That convinced me to let these sleeping beauties stay in the cellar a while longer. But, maybe we’ll find a time down the road to share a few '93s at their peaks and see if we can get you a bit more excited about the vintage- though I do agree with you that it is a bit stronger in the Cote de Nuits than the Cote de Beaune in general. But, I have Drouhin’s Clos des Mouches and Lafarge’s Clos des Chenes in the cellar and they are both brilliant, young wines.

Happy New Year,

John

Last night I had a 1985 Gerard Mugneret Chaignots that was stunningly good. From its color it could have been a very young wine - light in color but a very pure red with no orange evident. It only gave up some evidence of age on the nose, which had some elements that reminded me of Chave Hermitage from the 80’s, but it was clearly a Burgundy with its palate and texture. This was a totally different, much more elegant view of NSG than from some others like Chevillon or Gouges.

Is there any winemaking relationship between this wine (Gerard) and the one in the OP (Georges)?

Craig, until the 2004 vintage, Gerard (who, I think is a nephew of the late Dr. Georges; I met him only once: in 1985 ironically, during a visit to his estate), was a sharecropper with his uncle and then his cousins (a metayeur). He took care of the Chaignots holdings and got half the crop to make wine from and bottle. The holding is now entirely bottled by the sisters. From their website, a very nice one…1000_Accueil it seems that he is still involved with the grapegrowing.

Thanks Stuart. I take that to mean that these wines would have common raw materials but are not the same wine (in contrast to Chezeaux/Ponsot Chambolle Charmes, for example). Is that correct?

In any case, this wine was an eye-opener. Just before we opened it I had been talking about how many of my best Bordeaux experiences had been with 1985s which seemed to drink well at any age, and the next thing we saw was the ageless 85 Burgundy.

Yes,same fruit. That’s where it ends.

Many Burgundy vintages, IMO, are “ageless”. 1983 seems to be at peak now…and holding that way.

+1. I too was shocked by how the Zalto better focused the aromatics and flavors of Red Burgundy vs the Riedel Sommelier and Vinum glasses.

I find this utterly flabbergasting. Why wouldn’t you spend $50 on a glass that you believe to be the best? The magnum of 1993 that was “wasted” alone is worth 6 glasses. [scratch.gif]

Well, Paul, because $50 won’t get this glass. It’s $63, and depending on the day, includes or doesn’t include shipping. Clearly, there is one company that has a monopoly on this glass line in the US (with a couple of others thrown in). As a result, the prices in the US are ridiculously high. I guess they prefer that to actually selling lots of glasses. [soap.gif] Or to actually generating some momentum/enthusiasm. (They are much cheaper in Europe apparently.)

Stuart, watch for the sales and the price may be $49.95 like I paid.

Would you frame a Degas in plywood? Why wouldn’t anyone maximize their enjoyment of these rare and diminishing Burgundy works of art in the best frame for the price of almost any village wine? Just be careful with them.

The Champagne and white wine glasses get a wow rating aswell.

[basic-smile.gif]

Are the results much different from Riedel’s Extreme Burgundy glasses? The stems look somewhat similar.

With regard to Gerard Mugneret, I have known Gerard for more than 25 years and have been buying and drinking
his wines over that period. I don’t recall exactly when the Chaignots that Gerard tended reverted back to its
owners (likely about 10 years ago), but I always felt that his NSG Les Boudots was a superior wine. As a matter of fact on Christmas Day
we opened and very much enjoyed a 1999 Echezeaux from his estate. I thought it was an orphan bottle in my Tucson
storage, but I did see another bottle when doing some cellar reorganization yesterday.

Hank [cheers.gif]