William:
Just want to let you know what a breath of fresh air it is to read unvarnished opinions like this from a knowledgeable taster/critic.
I know your stated opinion about the 2016 vintage can’t be popular with the producers/distributors who sell Chablis for a living. But it’s extremely valuable for consumers.
I hope with all the commercial pressures that come with a paid gig that you can maintain your independence and critical voice to tell it as you see it!
basically you wouldn’t even piss in it if it’s a Buzz 84 ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Agreed, William is one of the best critics we’ve seen in recent years. Honesty with in depth knowledge. I enjoy following him on instagram and on here!
Who said youth is bad?! 
+1 to William being one of the best we’ve seen in years, recent and/or otherwise.
If WA keeps landing talent like him I’ll seriously consider resubscribing.
Apologies for the drift, but i find this super helpful and am wondering what your impressions are of 2016 white burg generally (e.g., meursault, p/c montrachet, st. aubin) and whether it is more positive or on par with your impressions of 2016 chablis. Thanks!
Ha! Yes, of course there are two good “Montmains” and without ideal farming conditions (I think vinification is less important than vegitative material and farming unless you do something really terrible), counterfactual are pretty tough.
Just read the kind comments here - thank you all.
Frankly, I wish I had started to cover Chablis for TWA with a vintage such as 2012, 2014 or even 2017. But it is what it is. At least in Burgundy, the wines will sell out whatever I write, so there is little danger of ruining anyone with a negative review.
In 2016 in Chablis, there was frost, hail and then, in some places, botrytis. There are some lovely wines (Patrick Piuze’s Roncières, Natalie Oudin’s premiers crus, Tribut’s Beauroy to name a couple that aren’t from Raveneau or Dauvissat that I own or would be happy to own). But many are atypically rich, exotic and musky, with quite low acids. As several producers joked, when you smell the wines, “you could be in Alsace”. This wasn’t so apparent from barrel as it is from bottle, and I expect those qualities to amplify with bottle age.
2016 Côte de Beaune is more complicated, with some rich, musky wines (where low yields from frosted sites ripened rapidly); some tart, angular wines (where 2nd and 3rd generation grapes were harvested along with what remained of the original crop); and some very classic, attractive wines. And it’s not simply a case of three categories: think of it as a spectrum. Most producers said they were happy if they simply made wines that were true to their house style and true to the site.
Helpful comments, William. Question: I’m sitting on some '15 and '16 Dauvissat Forest. Any predictions on aging and which would you open first? I’d like to crack one soon for science.
I bought three cases of the 2015 Dauvissat Forest (the Dauvissat-Camus label which is still stupidly cheap in the UK) on the basis that it would be nice to own some Dauvissat that would drink well in its youth.
Of course, I should have known better. It has shut down hard and become awkward already. I have a lot of confidence in it, but won’t be pulling corks for five or six years. It is not much fun to drink right now (I’m three bottles down, so trust me).
If you have your 2016s in hand, try one. They’re some of the best wines of the vintage. But it might not be a crime to drink them young. Some of my 2013 Dauvissat (an inferior vintage but one which shares some characteristics in terms of lower acidity and musky, exotic qualities - from botrytis rather than super low yields as in '16) I drank when they were young with great pleasure; I regretted waiting on the rest.
My favorite recent Dauvissat vintage for current consumption is 2008 (always perfect when drunk in France, often oxidized in UK and USA). 2006s are showing way better than they were a few years ago. And 2010s are beginning to open up, they’re less tight than you’d expect. Perplexingly, 2011 Preuses is more open than 2011 Forest—go figure. 2012 and 2014 I am trying to forget.
Looking a bit further back, 2000s and 2002s are really singing.
William, interesting comments, thanks. I haven’t had many, really just a few Fevre and Christophe, but those seemed quite “typical”, with nothing obviously off. Maybe not an exceptional vintage for those wines, but frankly I liked them better than 15 or 13.
Super helpful, William, thanks. And good thing I asked. I figured '15 would be more open, but sounds like '16 may be the better bet for near-term consumption. Only one way to find out!
I am not very warm on 2015 (which really didn’t work well for producers who use new wood), though I do think the best wines will age very well, and I’d rank 2013 as arguably the weakest vintage so far this millennium, so we’re not necessarily in disagreement. But after visiting thirty Chablis producers in June, I can say with confidence that if you expand your sample you’re going to see the characteristics I describe.
I liked the Christophe Fourchaume in 2016, btw. Which of their wines did you taste? Still not very well know.
VV, Mont de Milieu, Montee de Tonnerre, and Fourchaume. I too preferred the Fourchaume over the other three, though the MdM and MdT were very nice, and seemed quite “classic” to me. My first intro was the 2014 vintage, so pretty new to me as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I very much appreciate and respect your opinions, having tasted far more broadly than I. Thanks for your input!