TN: 2002 Jacques-Frédéric Mugnier Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Amoureuses

WINE TALK
21

That’s how I see it. I think the '02 just needs more time to show it’s stuff than the '01. Can’t see declaring one a better vintage than the other? '01 is simply more ready to drink. Neither vintage is even 10yrs old yet!

22

Hi Craig and Nick,

It is distinctly possible that the 2002s may develop more signature of terroir with further bottle age, but it will be the first vintage that I have ever encountered doing so, and I began tasting Burgundy out of barrel with the 1988 vintage. A couple of folks with more experience than I cite the 1978s as having been rather fruit-driven on first blush (though they never clarified whether this was from barrel or early tastings from bottle- the latter being the more likely scenario for these particular folks, given the demands on the time of young attorneys trying to make partner in NY). Certainly Burgundy ages in a distinctly non-linear manner and more terroir could emerge down the road, but I can vividly recall tasting through the cellars of my favorite producers’ 2002s and really being disappointed by the lack of terroir in the wines out of barrel, and this characteristic continues to define the wines at age eight.

I too have enjoyed drinking my 2002s of late for their captivating fruit tones, classy floral and spice components and the lovely bounce they deliver in their impeccably balanced, zesty profiles. But I have not hesitated to drink them over the last couple of years, while leaving more soil-driven (and hence to my palate, more serious vintages) like 1998 and 2001 for further development. While this is a bit like merging two threads, I have generally preferred my well-selected 2000s to their counterparts in 2002, as though the wines are also more fruit-driven in profile, I have found distinctly more terroir in the 2000s than I have in their corresponding 2002. For me, 2002 is one of the most beautiful vintages of Sonoma pinot that I have ever tasted from Burgundy, and I do not mean this in a perjorative manner, but rather to emphasize what a dramatically fruit-driven vintage 2002 is for a region where routinely fifty to sixty percent of an individual wine’s character is normally defined by its underlying soil. The lower acid and broader 2000s, at least to my palate, have heretofore delivered a much more pronounced signature of soil and hence have provided me with more personal enjoyment over the last few years.

All the Best,

John

23

John, you go back further and have drank more Burgs in one year probably than I have to date. So I sincerely appreciate and trust your opinion. I’m still hoping your wrong as I’m hoping they’ll end up being everything we love about '01 and more. That said I too have noticed that every '99 I’ve had has had that fatter less complex style more akin to '02 and CA PNs.

24

Interesting opinion on the 98’s. I do like them quite a bit but have felt that they were substantially ready.

25

Hi Craig,

I agree with you that the '99s are certainly a much more fruit-driven vintage at the present time than 2001, but this is a vintage that I personally rank way, way above 2002 for red wines (and probably above '01 as well when all is said and done). For me the primary difference was out of barrel, when there was emphatically not any shortage of terroir in the 1999s, whereas the 2002s out of barrel were pretty much identical to the wines that we see today out of bottle. The 1999s have really hunkered down after their bottling and become much more dominated by their fruit components than was the case out of barrel, but I have complete faith that the fine terroir that was there out of barrel will emerge again as the puppy fat eventually backs off a bit with this vintage. For me the 1999s are simply in a nice, prolonged period of youth, and their slow evolution I take as a very positive sign for the ultimate quality of the wines at their peaks of maturity. The early predictions for the 1999s was that they were a beautiful and very rare vintage of red Burgundy that would drink beautifully every step of their lives and never shut down for any prolonged period of adolescence. And yet a year or two later, the wines started to hunker down for hibernation and have not yet really stirred since 2002 or so. Their behavior is one of the happy reasons that I bought a lot of the 2000 vintage, which worked beautifully to keep curiosity at bay in terms of how the '99s were evolving. But recently I opend a bottle of the '99 Dujac Chambolle AC and the '99 Mugneret-Gibourg Vosne AC just to see if anything was stirring with the vintage. Both were still youthfully primary and in need of further bottle age, all of which I take as a very good sign for the evolution of the vintage in general.

All the Best,

John

26

Hi John, I have a semantic question for you. The context in which are using terroir here and in other places makes it sound like it is a synonym for minerality/earthiness. By contrast Ive always seen terroir as meaning the expression a wine takes on from where it is grown regardless of what that manifestation would be. Wine attributes where terroir expression are manifested would seem to be acid levels, fruit flavors, tannin amounts and texture, minerality and concentration. Under that point of view some vineyards might produce fruitier and less mineral driven wine while another might be more elegant and mineral driven. Would the mineral driven vineyard have “more terroir” than the fruit driven one? Or would they both be equal manifestations of their respective unique terroir context? The same could be applied to vintages. Some vintages may summon a high picthed voice from a vineyard while another may summon a lower pitched voice. Is either a truer expression of the terroir of that climat?

27

I wish I had loaded up. I thought prices would stay there. Fool am I.

28

I am having the '01 Musigny tonight…(along side an '01 DRC RSV…). [highfive.gif]

Will report back next week…

29

If that’s so, the 01 must be one helluva wine. From last May (with Don and John Richards)

2002 JF Mugnier Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses

In this incarnation, the name is appropriate. This is most definitely a wine to love. A hugely complex aroma, nick of soy, indian spices, even a smidge of raisin, but they all play a definite second fiddle to the cornucopia of red fruit and cocoa bits. To taste this is an experience I won’t soon forget. Juicy, slithers down your throat, a for-sure sense of terroir, earth bits, with raspberries and dusty unsweetened cocoa. It’s a glorious burgundy and my #2 tonight.

30

You are killing me Paul! Let us know how they both show. What are you drinking them with?

31

We are catching up for “work” dinner, think the restaurant does a good degustation…oh, and a couple of Montrachets to start with…

Will drop a quick note at some stage tomorrow…

32

I had the '01 as at least 2 point better (from memory 93+ to the '02 at 91). The '02 is a good wine, don’t get me wrong, but I just love the '01 style more.

Anyway, the group consensus on the night also was the '01 got 5 best wine votes to none for the '02…(and the “ringer” I threw in for this flight, an '07 Foillard Morgon Cote du Py, came second) [shock.gif]

33

Hi Berry,

I think we are in complete accord as to our working definitions of terroir and we use the term in precisely the same manner. So. of course, one terroir could produce decidedly more “minerally” wines and another more “fruit-driven” wines and their would be no substantive difference in their expressions of their own unique terroirs- simply different characteristics of each in the finished wines. Certainly Corton “Clos du Roi” produces more stony expressions of its underlying soil as part of its terroir than does Richebourg- but if both are made well, then neither is a greater expression of terroir- simply different terroirs. In the same way, Romanee-Conti does not possess a greater expression of terroir than a “Villages” lieu a dit in Nuits St. Georges- again, they are just vastly different terroirs. But the entire Burgundian system is an attempt to rank “quality of terroir”, with the underlying assumption that some terroirs are simply better than others.

But within this context, we of course have the independent variable of the winemaker, so that one producer’s Chambertin may in fact be superior to another’s in its expression of the underlying terroir of Chambertin. The reasons for this can be many- cellar regime, indigenous yeasts vs. commercial yeasts, percentage of new oak used, quality of new oak used, toast of said oak, extraction regime, temperature of fermentation, length of elevage, number of rackings, type of bottling, skill at bottling, age of vines in Chambertin, types of clones in Chambertin, yields, skill of pruning, timing of pruning, attention in the vineyard during growing season, use of herbicides etc, types of herbicides etc, fertilizers etc, use of sorting table at harvest- the list is almost endless for the number of variables that can go into the final expression of the underlying terroir of Chambertin in the finished wine. For any number of reasons, we collectively find that one producer’s Chambertin succeeds better in expressing the underlying terroir inherent in the vineyard, which we recognize on some level to be a relative constant in this equation of so many other variables. In reality of course, there are probably better sections of Chambertin, and variations of terroir from one section to another in the vineyard, but for the point of discussion, we need to downplay these and accept the vineyard boundaries as they are currently defined to examine the other aspects in the equation.

In my opinion, much as the winemaker has a dramatic influence on the final expression of the underlying terroir in his or her finished wine from said vineyard, so the role of a particular vintage’s characteristics plays an analogous part in the same. As we might rank one producer’s Chambertin over another on the criteria of its expression of the terroir of Chambertin (and of course, this is simply one criteria for evaluating a wine- others might prefer to rank the Chamberitn on its power, depth of fruit, alcohol percentage or any number of other characteristics), then it seems to me that we can discuss both the relative success of a winemaker to express this sense of terroir and a vintage’s relative success in expressing this same sense of terroir.

For my own personal palate, and this is all highly and personally subjective, my own hierarchy of vintage quality in Burgundy is deeply based on this last concept of how well a particular vintage succeeds in expressing the underlying terroir inherent in the region. It is in this sense that I find that the 2002 vintage falls short of full satisfaction for red Burgundy. Certainly I recognize that each year is going to express the terroir in different manners based on the style of the vintage, and this is emphatically not an attempt to “pigeon-hole” every vintage into some sort of pre-conceived notion of terroir expression, but simply to create a mechanism to somehow communicate perceptions of the relative merits of any given vintage in Burgundy. For example, to my palate, both 2005 and 2008 are very strong vintages for red Burgundy because they both very strongly communicate the underlying sense of terroir in their wines- and one has a hard time imagining two more polar extreme styles of vintages that both do a great job (IMO) of expressing their underlying terroirs. On the other hand, both 2003 and 2002 fall much further down my personal ranking of vintages because they do not strongly reflect their underlying terroirs- and again, both vintages are dramatically different in style.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I like the 2002 red Burgundies very much for what they are- pure, bouncy and fruit-driven wines that offer up an awful lot of pleasure today and will probably age gracefully for quite a long while as well. But there are an awful lot of other recent vintages of red Burgundy that I rank higher simply because I find these other vintages to express their underlying terroir (across a myriad of different vintage stylistic variations) with greater profundity. Relatively recent red Burgundy vintages that I personally rank higher than 2002 would include 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008. As I also noted earlier, I have to date derived greater pleasure from the 2000 reds than from their counterparts in 2002, but perhaps the '02s will eventually catch up with this vintage. I am still quite uncertain whether or not, when the dust finally settles on 2002, 2004 and 2007 red Burgs, that I will not ultimately find greater satisfaction from the 2004s and 2007s- again for their potentially greater fidelity collectively to their underlying terroirs. But of course, all three vintages are still ridiculously young for such evaluations and only time will tell in the long run. But even discounting the 2000s, 2004s and the 2007s, given that there are such a large number of recent vintages that I prefer to 2002, it is simply not possible for me to rank the very respectable vintage of '02 as a great year for red Burgundy.

But all of my long-winded digression does not address the fact that red Burgundy certainly ages in a non-linear fashion, and our preferences of today may not make sense a decade down the road, as each respective vintage evolves. As I said earlier in the post, the 2002s may one day rise up and start expressing their underlying terroir with much more strident voices than have heretofore been evident- it is certainly possible- though it would be beyond my experience with the region for this to happen, as I have not witnessed this with any previous vintage. But my experience with young Burgundy only goes back 25 years, and in the context of how these wines develop in high quality vintages, this is really not a particularly long time. And one’s perceptions of vintages certainly changes dramatically as the vintages come and go in their evolutionary cycles. Twenty years ago, my favorite vintages of red Burgundy from the decade of the 1960s were unequivocally the 1964s and the 1969s. Ten years ago my favorites were the 1962s and the 1966s. Today I might rank the 1961s ahead of all of these!

However, this variation over time is one of the things that makes Burgundy so fascinating. And though this discussion has been Burgundy-centric from the outset of the thread, hijacked shamelessly from Freddy Mugnier’s Les Amoureuses, it really applies to all wine regions and vintages. To my mind, the most intellectually satisfying model for approaching wine is through the prism of terroir, and this is true both in regions that have traditionally exalted the expression of terroir in their wines such as Burgundy, Piemonte and Germany, and regions that have historically played down this aspect of their wines (such as Bordeaux, California or Champagne- to name but a few). The methdology of evaluating wines through the prism of terroir is equally rewarding with wines from both camps IME, for it allows one to find and savor wines from the latter category such as Chateau Magdelaine, Edmund Vatan Sancerre, Stony Hill Chardonnay, Nicole Chanrion’s Cote de Brouilly, Mayacamas Cabernet, Domaine de Chevalier (older vintages- the new stuff would of course not fall into this category) or Jean-Paul Brun’s Beaujolais (to name a few examples), that may or may not come to light if viewed through other methodological approaches to the world of wine. Terroir is not the only answer of course- just my preferred answer- to how we try as human beings to categorize the wonderfully varied and complex world of wine.

All the Best,

John

34

The '01 Musigny showed beautifully, lovely pure sweet transparent fruit, nice middle weight youngish wine drinking quite well now.

The only minor quibble was it perhaps lacked a layer of complexity we we expecting, but that might come with more time…

35

Wow! Thanks, John, for your in-depth take on evaluating red Burgs through the dynamic prism of terroir. Lot of food for thought there.

36

“A funny thing happened” on my way to acquiring an '01 Moose for $200 from a Chicago retailer a couple years ago. It was on a list of closeouts for $200 and I jumped on it immediately and was told it was mine. The next day they called me and told me the btl had been dropped and broken. I’ll remain suspicious forever on that one. I think an employee or local customer ended up with my btl.

37

I am still quite uncertain whether or not, when the dust finally settles on 2002, 2004 and 2007 red Burgs, that I will not ultimately find greater satisfaction from the 2004s and 2007s- again for their potentially greater fidelity collectively to their underlying terroirs.

All I can say is “Wow!!!”, John. I am incredulous that anyone could/would conceivably “find greater satisfaction from the 2004s” vis a vis any other vintage, let alone vs. 2002. [wow.gif]

Recognizing that some of the basis of the criticism you’ve leveled on 2002 is accurate (as is often the case in fruit driven vintages…I can’t imagine 2004, as a vintage…even coming close to a good vintage…let alone 2002, which I consider to be the greatest vintage I’ve experienced before 2005. (Of course, it all depends on the criteria…and accross the board “success” is my main one.)

I’d be happy to trade some 2004 Rousseau, Roumier, Mugneret, Chevillon, etc…for their 2002 counterparts, John… [whistle.gif] so you can really let the “dust settle” on those 2004s. [cheers.gif]

38

Hi Stuart,

A very generous offer to trade 2004s for 2002s :wink: I have very little 2002 left in the cellar these days- some mags of Mugnert-Gibourg and a couple of cases of '02 Pavelots, as most of the rest of the vintage I have already drunk or traded off for 2001s early on in the game when one could essentially get three bottles of the '01 for two bottles of the corresponding '02. So I cannot help too much on my end with more 2002s, as those I did not swap off, I have very happily drunk in their very captivating “puppy fat of fruit” stage. But I have a fair bit of 2004s in the cellar and really like what I have there, and am hoping that the wines will continue to blossom and lose a bit more of their green aspects with further bottle age. I am probably much less sensitive to pyrazines in wines that you are, so I am fortunate to have a higher tolerance to this characteristic in the '04s and am anticipating really enjoying the vintage from about age twelve on out. But I have not been drinking them now, as I wrote a pretty big follow-up piece on the vintage out of bottle a year or two ago and figure I should give the ones I have in my cellar a proper stretch of bottle age.

All the Best,

John

39

LOL

Hopefully John, you will be be one of the ones buying all that Faveley & Mugnier Musigny, Dugat-Py Chambertin (and others), DRC, Leroy, Bachelet, Liger-Belair, Dr Georges Mugneret etc., etc. 04 that I finally consigned. About 4 mixed cases of ‘lesser’ wines remain in my cellar, including some that seem to have avoided this taint, but mainly for (only) very occasional testing over the next 20 years…

For my vintage character sensitivity, many are undrinkable, none have improved in the last 3 years, a majority also do not improve even with 48hrs aeration - all this talk of decanting must only work for those with borderline sensitivity. The taint also affects my perception of the acidity - making the wines ‘spikey’.

However, for the 50% (+?) of tasters that are oblivious to this, I agree it was a highly drinkable and enjoyable vintage at release, and to them it probably still is. So a bargain - but hopefully not too much of a bargain at forthcoming auctions :wink:

The problem with any commentary on 04 is that you are talking to different constituencies - which-ever side of the sensitivity fence you sit, those on the other side wiill think you are mad. From that perspective ‘extended commentary’ brings zero value to one group. I already know to disregard your 04 notes - I already do the same with Burghound’s 04 notes - yet if Stuart or Kevin say ‘pyrazine’, that is of immediate value to me…

Given the above, it is impossible for me to look at 04 in the same context as 2002, even before the unmasking of the taint I would have placed 02 ahead of 04…

Cheers, Bill