TN: Vogue 1990 and Faiveley 1993 Musigny

Comte de Vogue Musigny 1990
Very dark garnet colour still, with some lighter red edges, not yet bricking. Quite a bit of gamy bottle stink on opening, and a fair amount of sludge so decanted this all off. The stink dissipated quickly too, turning savoury, blood, iodine. Very structured palate with the feel of some unresolved tannins. Lovely acid and deep fruit – high-toned and red rather than stewed and black. Brambles and spice more so than floral. Pretty sanguinello and five-spice complexities. Very assertive and persistent, paired well with fish, poultry and beef. Based on this bottle, starting to come around into a seriously good wine, and another decade won’t hurt in the least. 94+

Faiveley Musigny 1993
Bottle #140. Quite a different expression of Musigny from the Vogue. This was more ruby than garnet and is fully ready to go. It blends beautiful lightness with rich and sensual flavours. No edges at all. Truffle and earthy complexities on the nose and palate, silky. Rich dark cherry fruit, pervasive but weightless. Floral with a hint of clove, umami richness. Absolutely lovely. An etherical privilege! 97
Faiv 1993B.JPG
Faiv 1993A.JPG
Vogue 1990.JPG

Ha. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a picture of Faiveley Musigny, much less an actual bottle.

Rauno, if you had to say, how much of the difference was vintage, and how much the producer?

Jim, my view on the difference needs to be tempered by miniscule experience and sample size! The Vogue has always been odd - good bottles a bit like the '90 La Chapelle where you’re wondering when it will ever come around. I’m not sure it is representative of the vintage or the general Vogue style. It’s been a long time since I had the '93 Vogue, but I have had other '93s relatively recently. The Faiveley was quite different from what I might “expect” from a typical '93 as it was so sensous, with structure quite secondary. Therefore my best guess is the difference is down to producer.

Great stuff Rauno. Fascinating tasting. A rare sighting of a Faiveley Moose.

Nice wines.

The '90 Vogue is an odd one, many thought that this wine was either flawed or just not very good, but as more time goes on it seems to keep on improving!

Love Faiveley’s Moose, ethereal wines indeed.

Rauno, great wines and notes! I look forward to your brining along something similar on Thursday evening :wink:


Thanks Rauno! I totally understand the small sample size thing - but still totally worth hearing firsthand thoughts.

The 1990 clearly shows huge bottle variation. I’ve had a number that ranged from disappointing to awful. My most recent note, about a year ago:

Vogue failed miserably with the 1990 Musigny, a consistently unpleasant wine. Soak crushed dinner mints (the chalky ones one occasionally finds by a restaurant’s exit) and a bunch of well bruised herbs in a blend of sherry vinegar and the juice from a jar of stewed prunes, and I suspect the result is very close to this wine. After a few hours on the decanter, it got worse.

Thanks for the notes. Great to read the experience on a pair of Moose.

Mike - I have seen a lot of similar notes or stories of such experiences with the Vogue. Clearly, I have been lucky. Nothing stewed, minty, bruised or vinegary in my bottles. A tragedy that there is obviously so much variation.

Having never tasted the 90 Vogue I am not really qualified to comment, but it does sound like the vagaries of barrel to barrel bottling and some VA prevalent in problematic barrels. Of course, I could be way off beam…again.

Hi Rauno, great to see you went with the Faiveley, no other notes on this wine that I can find, so a real rarity - great vintage, domaine and terroir, what could go wrong :slight_smile:

+1 on 90 Vogue Moose. Wonder if it was fermented w Cabernet yeast.

Yes, for the 90 de Vogue I think I will take Rauno’s advice and leave another 10 years.

Never had these two vintages, but the description is not dissimilar to the 1991 M. Vogüe - and also the 2006 M. Faiveley (the only one I´ve had) showed a similar style, only much younger, was also one of the best 2-3 Ms in our tasting …
So I think it´s more the house style … (but later Vogüés seem to get a bit more elegant …)

I cannot recollect whether it was the the 1990 de Vogue Bonnes Mares or Musigny that I had number of years ago. But looked inelegant and blocky. Especially compared with the '66 La Mission sitting next to it.

Just checked my Junk Email folder in case my invite was mistakenly flagged…nope… :slight_smile:

Some epic wines Rauno. So happy they were showing so well for you.

To put it in context the Faiveley Moose holdings in 1993 were about 300sq metres or about a 10M x 30M plot. (30ft x 100ft).

Looks like instead of around 150 bottles of Faiveley Musigny available…they are going to be able to produce 500-660 per year as they have picked up a small plot of vines from the Dufouleur family between Roumier and Vogue…per Tanzer.

Yes, I think that was in Nov. 2015.

Faiveley owned originally 0.0338 ha, bought 0.098 ha from Dufouleur … which is a total of 0.1318 ha.
At 38 hl/ha this yields 500 liter or 666 bottles maximum … realistically maybe 450 bottles.

Are you any relation to the Rene Engel family of Vosne Romanee?