No shots fired at all-what I mean is that when we don’t much like a wine we should first of all question ourselves rather than the wine or its producer. I’m referring to humility with regard to wine rather than to the opinions of others.Opinions are of only moderate interest, on the whole, and it goes without saying that that applies above all to mine.
I just had a very fine pair of 1999 Mazoyeres- and Charmes-Chambertin 1999 from P-M on Saturday …
so your statement is really not true.
The wines were quite youthful, and YES, there was still a tiny hue of barrel toast in the background, but otherwise fine dark-berried fruit, length and good balance … most preferred the Mazoyeres over the Charmes, but only slightly.
Also the 1996 Combe d´Orveau impressed against a GC Musigny several months ago …
Christophe has reduced his oak regime during the last decade, so the wines are now less oaky and more fruit-dominated.
I disagree with most mentioned.
It seems so!
Just had a 1999 Grands Echezeaux / Mongeard-Mugneret that was stunning.
The 1991s are still very fine … but I admit that this producer is inconsistant (but BAD? NO!)
Wines from Jean (now Michel) Gros often are among the most convincing Burgundies - for me and many friends … and Anne Gros´ are very fine most of the times.
Gros Frere and Soeur is (for me) the least convincing Gros, but certainl ynot “bad”, sometimes a bit heavy in oak.
A-F Gros(-Parent) has taken over Michels Richebourg, and the quality has dropped slightly, but the wines are still “good”, sometimes excellent (I had a very nice Village 1996 in Dec.).
Maume can be great with the appropriate age on the wines …
I´ve tasted Thibaut L-B only young … a bit high in extraction and oak, but cannot say anything about aged wines …
Girardin is a “mean” negociant (with some domaine wines) … rarely exciting, but not BAD …
Some people here are confusing “non my style”" with “bad producer”.
A really bad producer (but based only on two tasted vintages) was a Domaine Thomas in Vosne-Romanee, in the same road as DRC, but opposite …) - we bought 3 bottles, two 1991s and one 1992 … the 91 Chaumes was incredible bad the same day for pick-nick (so no storage issues possible): bitter, unbalanced, acidic, almost no fruit, and that was in 1994 … and the other two tasted in Austria were absolutely no better.
(… but can have improved since then - or gone bankrupt …)
There were also many producers that made crap 20, 30 years ago, but have improved greatly and are fine now …
(e.g. Amiot in MSD)
1 Like
I like Mongeard-Mugneret and Thibault’s wines. Also the Clos Vougeot from Gros Freres on occasion.
A chacon son gout.
I guess these are my Caymus.
Again, it cannot be that all grower-producers from Burgundy are good. Someone has to be below average; someone has to be well-below. And just as making a bad wine doesn’t make an excellent producer a bad one, making a good wine here or there doesn’t automatically elevate a bad producer to the land of the good.
It is interesting, though, for all the talk of the Burgundy minefield, how the general view is that either no or very few bad producers are imported to the US! You’d think, then, that burgundy should be more consistent than other regions, especially since I’m quite sure there are bad domestic producers whose wines I see routinely.
Quite an interesting thought. Keep in mind that with the prices that these wines are sold at Stateside that an importer would be wise to have his list of wines well sorted for the intended market. This is doubly important in the US with such a culture of price increase.
I do believe that while Burgundy is thought to have an established way of doing things, “style” is alive and well here. Tom’s comments shed light upon (though doesn’t fully press) this point. Burgundy is a monocepage, and does indeed have a strong current of how things generally are done. However, there is great diversity here. Diversity gives room for preferences. And so the conversation is best sorted when preferences are separate from outright quality (or lack thereof in this context). Is ‘Bad’ simply something too far against my preferences? Is it considered bad for a particular terroir to be exploited in a manner that is away from what others (that I like) are doing with it?
I find it intriguing what hot buttons are valued as calling cards for outright quality. There are indeed patterns that appear when speaking of perceived quality. Though with time I am coming to the realization that perceived quality owes a lot to specific style and how it aligns to trending preferences.
A sound Burgundy wine is not respected as much today as an extreme example that makes waves of some sort. It is interesting to have a situation where terroir is meant to be King, though it is truly the flourishes on his robe that truly receive the attention.
Beautifully put…
I think you’ve demonstrated that the Burgheads here are too civil.
David,
I do understand your point.
It is very difficult for me however to make a value judgement on someone else’s taste.
Good and Bad are value judgements. They imply “black/white” type of choices.
Burgundy is not like that to me. It is only a minefield if you buy something which doesn’t appeal to you personally.
You can also catch a wine (like some of the 2008’s now) that just doesn’t show anything. All elevage notes. That leaves you feeling it is a lost cause. The wine is sound however. It is just not the right time. Sometimes the elevage notes are just too much for your personal taste. A chacon son gout.
I will tell you that I have never heard Clive Coates go off as much on a producer as he did a couple of years ago with Mongeard-Mugneret. He told us to sell all of it in our Tastevin cellar. The wine we served was an Echezeaux VV 1993. An absolutely delicious wine to me. Now. If I took his view and said “there is something wrong with my personal taste” , I have done myself a disservice. I like that wine. Why shouldn’t I drink it? It is not in any way flawed with TCA, VA, Brettanomyces or some infection.
If I also go the other route and say that Mr. Coates is off his rocker, I take away the grain of truth in his criticism. It is valid for him. A data point for me. I can take it or can leave it if I want. Just because he criticized the wine does not make it bad however.
It bothers me just a little when it becomes aggressively negative towards people who spend their lives trying to make a product that is true to the area but also to their own taste. Those are not bad wines unless they are flawed in some way to me even if I don’t personally care for them.
FWIW.
if you rank anything from best to worst, half are in the bottom half. Your ranking might be different from mine and from someone else’s, but there will be parallels and consistencies. There are bad producers and it is not just a matter of taste or style preference.
alan
Exactly. Either it’s all subjective and there are no good or bad producers, or there are objectively good producers (who may or may not make a style you like) in which case there must be objectively bad producers. I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the view that it is, in fact, entirely subjective, and that all producers are objectively making sound wines and the notion that Leroy’s Clos Vougeot is “better” than Anne Gros’s is wrong; but other than Tom Blach I think most would disagree!
Don – So you have no opinions you want to express about bad producers?
No names?
Man! You guys are no fun at all!
I indeed think that’s an absolutely stupid notion though as it happens the wines of neither producer are particularly to my taste, which is no reflection on their quality. I quite agree that there are bad producers but it would be ludicrous to put Anne Gros and Leroy among their number.
exactly–the notion is foolish that just because someone spends their life doing something makes them good–restaurants and stores don’t go out of business because they are so good–and not all winemakers make great or good wine. All can be ranked and half are below average. While we may not be in exact agreement, there can be consensus re the best and the worst.
alan
I have an interesting couple of side questions if you will allow me.
Are low yields always “good” for quality in Burgundy?
The black/white version of this is that higher yields are “bad” for quality.
If a producer has low yields, they always produce good wines?
No grey here folks. Either it is yes or no.
Also what specifically makes a Burgundy wine bad?
Thanks for playing.
This way we can leave the producers out and get to the root of the question.
Chardonnay is not as affected as much by yield as Pinot, I have read. And I think yield is just one factor. There is gray, I believe.
What makes a wine bad? Lack of balance, many possibilities for spoilage and uncleanliness, lack of ripeness or over ripeness, many possibilities, I believe.
alan
Alan,
The reason I posed the question this way is to show the difficulty in being black and white with anything. Not just Burgundy. Not just producers.
Not saying black/white answers don’t exist. They are just rare compared with our perceptions.
Don–I agree it is not all black and white. But if we can decide the best, we can decide the worst. While agreement may not be exact, there can be general consensus.
alan
But then there was 1999, with its very high yields.
Oops.