A bunch of mostly Burgundy TNs (somewhat long and boring)

This was over a course of a few weeks. My notes can be idiosyncratic, so if you don’t like them or don’t find them useful, I will gladly give you your money back :slight_smile:

Boisson-Vadot 2015 Les Grand Charrons
Double blind. Some reduction on the nose, but not obtrusive and blows away reasonably quickly. Nose is a bit tropical, and there’s a hint of tropicality on the palate, but this feels correct rather than obtrusive. The palate has great acidity, mostly with white fuit and there’s just wonderful tension on the mid-palate, almost grand cru quality. The finish is medium, but good, with some more hints of tropicality. The tropical notes and palate tension made me think this was a big vintage Meursault from a very good producer - a more restrained vintage of PYCM or a Roulot, from 2010 or maybe 2011? Was surprised it was a 2015, as the acidity is considerably greater than what I’m used to in 15. A terrific wine and the finish expanded when we revisited this later in the evening.

Ganevat 2014 Les Gryphees
Double blind. Clearly natural wine, clearly Jura. This is a very good clean example of the type; the reduction isn’t obtrusive, the acidity isn’t bracing and there’s some nice clearly Chardonnay flavors on the palate. I thought given how clean this was this might be a Domaine du Pelican, if not a Ganevat. Paired really well with beet salad (not often easy to do).

Chavy-Chouet 2017 Meursault Clos de Corvees de Citeau
My wine, not blind. No reduction. The nose smells like…well…some kind of very sweet banana candy. The wine tastes like it too. Just a dominant overly sweet banana note on both the nose and palate. The acidity is solid and the palate has decent concentration, but that flavor profile is hard to get past. Air does not help this wine; the finish acquires the taste of extracted dried apricots, the way Konsgaard or similar wines sometimes do. Plenty of this left at the end of the night.

Louis Jadot 1996 Corton-Pougets
Double blind. Clearly some age on the nose - this has gone secondary. There’s a touch of earth and quite a bit of iron, but it’s not especially concentrated. On the palate, there’s still a good amount of structure, but what dominates is the acidity, with heavy notes of iron, yet the wine feels somehow soft. The acidity led me to 1996 and the iron and the softness to Volnay. Not a bad call, though the earth might haved led me to Corton given how close I was - but who ever calls Corton? A nice wine, especially given how rough 96s are.

Domaine Faiveley 2010 Gevrey-Chambertin Cazetieres
Double blind. There’s some earth on the nose that’s fighting with oak and then on the palate the sweet oak comes all the way through. I called this an oaky Gevrey and that’s what this is. Generally I find the new Faiveley regime too oaky and extracted, and this is a good example - the finish is all sweet oak that’s just really distracting. This might come good eventually given enough time. The oak isn’t necessarily unpleasant, but it’s definitely not my thing. To me, the epitome of a California drinker’s Burgundy.

Mugnier 2002 Chambolle-Musigny
Double Blind. The moment this is poured I think this is Mugnier - the nose screams it. But then the palate, while very red fruited and pleasant, is unusually warm and slightly sweet, which isn’t the typical Mugnier profile, and I’ve had a bunch of the 2002 Fuees recently. I wonder if it may have been that I used this glass for the Faiveley? It’s a nice wine, but not a great example of a Mugnier on the palate. That said, I was still kicking myself for not sticking with my guess of Mugnier - the nose is completely correct and absolutely lovely.

Mugneret-Gibourg 2002 Fueselottes
Double Blind. Sexy oak! The nose and the palate both have some sexy, sexy oak. The wine is concentrated with some great ripe dark red fruit and a long and excellent finish with yet more sexy oak. There’s maybe a touch of heat on the finish, which led me to riper vintage like 2009. The nose is ripe yet delicate; this is great and feels like a Mugneret-Gibourg, though to be honest, I have trouble telling their 1er crus apart. Absolutely lovely and my wine of the night.

Hubert Lignier 2008 Chambolle Baudes
Double Blind. Jeeebus, this is the stinkiest wine I’ve had since that benighted 2015 Roumier Bourgogne. It never blows off and I found it impossible to call this anything; I had suspicions it might not be Burgundy the nose was so off. The palate seems mostly correct, though I found it a bit too acidic. I made a feeble guess and was shocked at the reveal. What happened here?

Hubert Lignier 2008 Morey St. Denis VV 1er Cru
Double blind. Dark fruit on the nose and there’s some age, but not too much. The palate has medium concentration and more dark fruit. I found this wine quite boring and foursquare, and the palate again a bit thin and acidic. Someone suggested that this was very similar to the previous wine, and they were right. Weird, as I’ve really enjoyed recent 08 Lignier. I got nowhere close on these.

Jouan 2009 Morey St. Denis Clos Sorbes
My wine. The nose has a very odd herbal/medicinal quality that fights with the dark fruit; almost a menthol type note. It’s not quite green, but the wrong type of spice. The palate is just waves and waves of beautiful blue fruit - it’s lovely and has good concentration, but that weird herbal note runs slightly through the finish, marring it. Several people called this as MSD - the blue fruit is strong here.

Roumier 2017 Charmes Chambertin aux Mazoyeres
Served non-blind. This was the worst kind of infanticide, and 5 hours in a decanter didn’t help. It’s not that it was unpleasant, but rather that it was so primary and fruit forward that there wasn’t too much point to this. The fruit is extremely primary and somewhat purple, the finish is short - it just doesn’t drink like a pedigree. Those in the group who only knew it was a Roumier thought this was a Chambolle village.

Hudelot-Noellat 2013 Vosne-Romanee Suchots
Double blind. My note says “very shut down”, and my recollection is that while this felt dark and tannic, it really was offering very little. Not in a happy place at the moment.

Fourrier 2014 Gevrey Chambertin
It’s Fourrier, it’s lovely. Perfumed very slightly carbonated nose (that blows off) strawberries/cherries on nose and palate. The palate is a bit more thin than I’d prefer, as I think like some 14s this is slightly starting to shut down. However, other than certain vintages, it’s Fourrier - it’s great.

Georges Lignier 2014 Morey St. Denis
This drinks more like Chambolle than Morey; the nose is light, perfumed and lifted and there’s a lot more red fruit than black. A very pure, clean nose. The palate is a lot less intersting - it lacks power, and the finish is short and thin. The Clos de l’Orme from this producer is a considerable step up in quality imho, for not all that much more money.

Brovia 2016 Barolo
This wine is wide open; the nose is very expressive with notes of tar, balsamic and some strawberry, but dominated to me by the fuit rather than the balsamic, in what I tend to associate more with Castiglione Falletto (where about half of this is sourced - primarily from Garblet Sue). Also a bit of spice on the nose. The palate is also quite open, with raspberry notes and maybe a touch of menthol. Finishes perhaps just a touch hot and rough, but a really nice normale, especially with food.

Vouette & Sorbee 2012 Blanc d’Argile
Double blind. Clearly grower champagne. This was quite round, with maybe a touch of pear on the nose and the palate, but nice. I thought this was a BdN (whoops) - I’m used to this cuvee having more cut and acidity. A nice wine, but nothing memorable.

Paul Pillot 2018 Chassagne-Montrachet La Grande Montagne
My bottle. Really nice white fruit on the nose, with some hints of stone fruit. But this is not lean, rather precise, I’d say. The color is almost green (a few people were debating which Carillon I had brought). On the palate this has very good acidity and flavor, with the finish suggesting the vintage, but overall this is a delicious wine that’s ready to drink now. The mid-palate is a bit dilute, but otherwise this is a terrific effort for a very challenging vintage.

Denis Bachelet 2009 Gevrey-Chambertin Les Corbeaux 1er Cru
Double blind. Blech - this is green or somehow otherwise flawed. Someone somewhat called this Gevrey, and kudos, but this was undrinkable. I thought it was a 2011 something. Maybe a sign of the cooperage problems Bachelet was having in those years. We recorked this to avoid contaminating the air around us (joking…I think?).

Philip Pacalet 2009 Gevrey-Chambertin
Double Blind. Just waves and waves of bright blue fruit on the nose and palate. Waves of it - but this was in your face, rather than continuing. I really liked this and thought this might be an 09 Huber Lignier, with more air time this becomes a bit more carbonic-like, but it’s still quite pretty. The finish is short, though it is just a village. I’ve called these slutty wines and I stand by that - Pacalet tends to hit you with lots of fruit up front, but I find they often don’t have the complexity or finish I’d really prefer.

Syvlie Esmonin 2010 Clos St. Jacques
Double Blind. The nose is dark red fruit with a touch of spice and a good amount of oak. The palate is similar - it’s dark red fruit, a fair amount of concentration a lot of oak, and there’s a touch too much extraction on the finish. There’s a good amount of acidity and tannin - what this wine will be like in the future remains to be seen. I thought this was younger. Given the vintage and the terroir, it’s much too young to really judge this wine, but it currently lacks the grace and complexity I’d want from the site.

Nicolas Potel 2006 Echezeaux
Double blind. This is more wood than wine. The nose is all oak and while the palate mostly just creates a nice smooth luge to slide the wine down your throat, the finish has harsh oak tannins that are bitter and unitegrated. Unpleasant to drink, and in a vintage like 2006 I have a hard time believing this will ever integrate. I think I called this a 2015 on account that it shows no age and refused to call a village because how would I know where the trees are from?

Mugnier 2006 Chambolle-Musigny
Double blind. A somewhat sappy nose with dark pretty fruit, but it’s a touch muddled, as is the palate. This wasn’t a terrible interesting wine. I don’t remember what I called here (it’s not in my notes and I don’t think I got very close), but this is not a great bottle of Mugnier. It’s a bit boring and lacks the crystalline precision Mugnier typically has.

Dominique Laurent 1996 Clos de la Roche
Theoretically single blind, but by this point I knew this was my wine. There’s a very strong and dominant tart cherry note on the nose, which is quite pleasant, and which continues on to the palate. There’s decent concentration and while the acidity is present, for a 1996, it’s not dominant like in nearly all wines of this vintage. It definitely drinks younger than its vintage, though I think some of that has to do with the oak treatment. There’s no oak obviously present, and I’m quite sensitive to it, but I do think there’s some here. Overall, it’s a nice but slightly simple bottle of wine, though for a terrible vintage it’s a nice effort.

Fourrier 2007 Clos St. Jacques
Purportedly a weak vintage, but an absolutely terrific wine. This is now becoming secondary, and this adds some lovely notes to what is typically an exuberant wine. I generally expect Fourrier’s CsJ to be darker in fruit than his other wines (other than maybe the Come aux Moine), but this stayed relatively light, which was interesting. The finish is quite long. Easily the wine of the night.

L’Arlot 1993 Clos des Forets
Massively green. Two in one night, both from vintages that don’t typically suffer from pyrazine issues. What are the odds.

Fourrier 2007 Gevrey-Chambertin
Absolutely lovely. Now secondary, the wine doesn’t quite have the same youthful exuberance of bright red fruit you generally get from Fourrier, but it’s still so very pretty. The palate as always is very pretty red fruit, though the finish is a tad short (it is a village). However, as the night went on it definitely picked up weight and concentration in the mid-palate, and towards the evening was considerably more substantial.

Cecile Tremblay 2016 Chambolle-Musigny Les Cabottes
A fascinating pairing with the 07 Fourrier. This is dark, concentrated and big, but never overdone. It’s surprisingly open for a 2016 and is delicious from pop and pour. The nose is dark spicy fruit (though not oak), and the dominant note on the palate is red currant (my friend and I spent a bit of time debating what that flavor was). The wine finishes with a massive amount of black pepper, certainly atypical in Burgundy but quite nice. This is considerably beyond village level and is absolutely delicious. Makes me wish, yet again, that I had a Tremblay allocation!

3 Likes

Some nice wines there Greg.

I’ve had a few '15 white Burgs of late. They have calmed down and are very tasty drinks.

Solid stuff Greg K. The 16’ Brovia is something, marrying Serralunga and Castiglione Falletto is a beautiful thing.

I think it’s a really nice vintage for current drinking, yes. The vintage got poor initial reviews because it was warm, and I don’t think it’s going to be especially long lived, but it’s very nice balanced and I think there were a lot of producers who did pretty well. I like it a lot better than 16 for example. A lot of wines that drink very nicely right now.

It really is, yeah! I’ve had a couple of the Brovia crus as well, really lovely stuff. I tasted them at Brovia last year, so went especially deep; one of the values in Barolo for now for sure, especially since they drink well relatively young without being modern

very honest and helpful notes.

Great notes. My only quibble was the note that you think 1996 is “terrible”. Not my experience at all; it is certainly not homogenous but I have had a good percentage of excellent wines from the vintage.

Nice work, Greg.

Any thoughts on when Faiveley became “safe” again after the oak era?

Great notes and insight Greg. I’ve had that Faiveley Caz. I seemed to like it more than you but had them young and haven’t touched in awhile. Surprised the Brovia was so open. Temping to open one soon.

Robert- the Azelia normale is also a mix of CF and Serralunga. Heck of a wine for $36 if you haven’t tried.

Nice and useful notes, thanks!

Thanks for all the notes. Bachelet’s 09s are odd ducks indeed.

I have a bunch of the 10 Villages. Any issue in those ? The 8’s are still painfully young but the last one a few months ago was quite nice good with coq au vin.

Very nice. Lots of great wines there; not boring at all, in fact, helpful for the few I have yet to visit.

Good to know! Also have to mention Massolino’s normale cause it’s so good. Even though the mix is 99% Serralunga, to 1% CF

I’ve had this debate with people - I’ve found 96 to be a consistently bad vintage where the acid is so dominant the wines just aren’t pleasant. For some reason, I had a lot of them last year and even from producers whom I’d have expected to do well (d’Angerville, Roumier, etc.) I’ve found them to be consistently disappointing. YMMV of course!

A couple of my friends drink a lot of Faiveley and mentioned 2010 as particularly oaky, so after that? A number of people whose palates I really respect (like Johan) have said his reds are getting a lot better, and I’m told the 16s were very good. I had an 08 Beze blind recently and the nose was lovely but the palate was fairly weak for what should be a big wine - I thought it was at most a pleasant 1er cru from a high elevation site in a cool year. pileon

Thanks for sharing.

Anecdotally your tasting notes remind me of a NY Times food critic review. I can’t tell if you are an impeccably precise and gifted palate or supremely fastidious. I’ll have to drink more of your selections to find out.

1 Like

Massolino will be terrific but the 16 was the least approachable normale I’ve tried so far. Really didn’t budge till day 3. Have high hopes for it’s development. Another one I went back and bought more of.