Sauzet PM 2015 - prematurely oxidized

I know,

not exactly news out there.

Just wanted to let some steam out…

These days I mostly only have younger burgundy in my cellar, a few from 2010, bust mostly 2014 and 2017. And not many CGs as they seem less obvious to drink young. Previously I have really been hit bad, by premature oxidation - but I rarely do anymore.

But… I also have some demi bottles of Sauzet Puligny Montrachet 2015 - I have drunk 3-4 bottles with great pleasure. At good maturity now it seams.

I have now opened the 3rd bottle with premature oxidation, and I just hate pulling the cork and at first smell knowing it is gone

I will try to stay away from this otherwise excellent domaine in the future…

thought they had solved their issues w more sulfur and a different closure. Thanks for the data points.

Don’t like hearing that, especially after I bought several of their offerings from 2019 including the one you have pictured above and some other 1er Cru. I guess I’ll be trying these sooner rather than later.

I gave up on white burgundy a while ago. I feel your pain. I would say 25% of the white burgundy that I have opened has been oxidized. Mostly '04-'09.

Did you give up buying/drinking them or cellaring them?

I recently had a 2014 Sauzet Puligny that was oxidized. I understand there is some risk, and i’m willing to accept that, but to see oxidation in a wine so young is really frustrating to me.

Had a 2018 recently that was corked. They’re still using cork on their lower end wines. Hopefully they are using DIAM in the higher end stuff.

Asger and Jason - I’m really sorry to read this but not surprised. You should write and complain: Owner-grower, Etienne Sauzet Puligny-Montrachet Grand Cru, AOC, exports of Burgundy wines
I don’t expect you’ll get a refund since they presumably sell via someone else, but especially bearing in mind the price of the wines, they should at least be made aware of the growing dissatisfaction.

Good idea Julian, have just send them an email - will share if I get a response.

I really hope you do - and get a bottle!! These Burgundy producers have been getting away with daylight robbery for far too long. In any other business, they would have been pilloried and forced by the authorities to reimburse their clients for having sold faulty goods.

Honestly, I take issue with this. The problem is, at least for US consumers, by the time you are drinking a bottle of white burgundy it is several layers removed from the winery. Further, whatever price I paid for my oxed Sauzet is not what the winery received for it; it would be unjust to expect that amount back from them.

I have had generous retailers provide me refunds for oxidized bottles, but I absolutely do not expect it - to me, premox is unfortunately part of the risk of purchasing white burgundy, unpleasant though it may be.

I appreciate this perspective, but if a producer of white wine in Burgundy - especially one of the most respected names in the region whose bottles sell for a pretty penny - is using anything but DIAM on their entire range of wines, it’s approaching negligence.

Sure, but nobody is forcing us to buy their wines. It is up to us to be informed consumers. I decide to purchase wines from many producers that don’t use DIAM, but I do so understanding the risks.

I actually did not ask for replacement bottles - as I do not expect it - but would not say no :slight_smile:

I am sure their professional proudness are hurting, being told that the family business are producing bad wine (or at least it turns into bad wine). I truly believe they want to do better, and knowledge is the first step…

I should probably contact the German importer I bought the wines from, to get bottles replaced

Jason, I must say I didn’t see that one coming!

I have never asked for a refund for a corked bottle - the chances of getting one are so ridiculously small anyway and it really isn’t the winery’s fault when it does happen. But premoxed Burgundy? What percentage of them are, after how many years??! I don’t even remember when the problem started, but it certainly hasn’t gone away and in this case, I really don’t see why the consumer should bear the cost of the problem which largely exceeds “bad luck”. It seems to have been shown that Diam corks reduce the risk considerably, so a producer choosing not to use them is just making the matter worse, IMO.

But fair enough, it’s your money and not mine - I opted out a long time ago. I completely respect your position.

I understand the point you’re trying to make, but this is a very facile argument. Coche, d’Auvenay, Raveneau, Domaine de la Bongran, PYCM, etc all use natural cork with minimal issues. And they are not “negligent”!

It’s definitely reductive (the argument not the wine!) but if I had a history of issues with my wines, the idea that I would just tell my clients to pound sand and roll the dice is wild to me.

I know you mentioned offhand that there was a (Spanish?) producer of cork that DRC and some others used that had a great track record, I’d be interested to know more.

i think drc has some premox issues, especially with 02 and 05 monty.

Telling clients to roll the dice is definitely wild, but don’t see that posted by anyone here.

I thought the message is clear, that it’s the consumer’s choice to buy or not buy.

I guess we have a different view of responsibility.