Please tell me this is an error. Please. He must mean Dauvissat, allthough there is ZERO resemblance
Not Raveneau too?
I think we need to be careful about talking about premox in the context of a single bottle. Premature oxidation is a mass phenomenon. Oxidation impacts individual bottles.
A bottle of Raveneau can be oxidized due to any number of reasons, such as poor storage. Premox is an issue only if many more bottles than we would expect given the age suffer oxidation.
Which bottle of Raveneau
Hey Larry, opining that Raveneau’s Clos might not be the benchmark “classic” is not intended to mean that it’s not a world class wine!
I think incidence of premox should be a factor in judging the overall quality, reputation, and qpr of a producer, but I don’t want to factor it in to a discussion like this.
As much as I love Raveneau, I often perceive enough oak on the palate of many of the wines to cause me to think “this is great Chardonnay, but is it great Chablis?”. Skimming through my notes from past years, it just seems like I write more classic descriptors for Dauvissat (and Fevre) than I do for Raveneau. It’s one of the reasons why I actually love Raveneau’s Monts Mains most years, because it tends more toward the classic line than his other wines.
But just to be clear, I love Raveneau!
I was also a Fevre naysayer and I’ve had some unimpressive bottles, but a Grand Cru (I think Clos but not sure) that Alan Rath brought to one of our offlines a few years ago was truly great.
Premox is both a singular and mass phenomenon. There’s a difference between a premoxed bottle and a bottle suffering from ‘normal’ oxidation.
‘Normal’ oxidation starts out, generally, with a bit of caramelized baked apple. The oxidative flavors increase and gain different aspects over time…but the wine is quite interesting to drink for quite a while, even if it isn’t at its peak any more.
A premoxed bottle otoh initially takes on a small hint of a sherry character. Over time the wine accumulates increasing amts of the sherry character. But, depending on your sensitivity to the sherry character, the wine will be undrinkable, or will yield no pleasure, once the sherry is detectable…leading to an early & instant death.
No doubt they’re both oxidation, tho different forms. But premox is an instant death sentence and normal oxidation is a graceful transition. Anyways, that’s my experience/opinion.
Both Raveneau and Dauvissat use some amount of new oak (Fevre does as well). In fact, Vincent has argued that Chablis needs a bit of new oak to soften Chablis’ austerity…tho I wonder if climate change has changed his position on that.
But, I’m moderately certain that Raveneau stirs the lees some amount, which can give it the impression of more oak than there actually is (the difference being that stirred lees character will recede over the years more than additional new oak will).
Pls post the link about premoxed Raveneau
Can’t find it
Claus … my apologies … recent thread was about poxed 08 Dauvissat Clos!
On Clos, I think “expensive” is what I’d call classic. Also, “Delicious.” But not much stylistic agreement!
This past New Years we opened my line 2002 Ravenenau Clos. It’s a stupendous wine, yet at the same time I had wished for less of an oak signature. Can it reach the heights it does without the oak treatment?