Critical of the Critics - 2004 & 2011 Red Burgundy

Based on recent threads, it sounds like 2011 is shaping up to potentially be 2004 redux in terms of GMs.

Dismaying news.

I suspect reviewers didn’t note the GMs in barrel samples or early bottlings of wines, as in 2004, which begs the question:

Why trust red burgundy reviewers moving forward when in 2004, and potentially again in 2011, they are unable to, for whatever reason, identify GMs in barrel samples?

Fortunately due to lack of funds, I’ve only purchased a small amount of 2011s, however I do have some Bertheau. Seeing the notes on the 2011 1er Cru gives me concern - I can only imagine what those who blindly followed the critics AND had the coin to spend are thinking right now.

I stumbled upon a BH review of the 2011 Bertheau CM 1er before purchasing and no hint at all of a GM disaster, let alone VA, rot, etc. I’m sure it wasn’t just BH, I know IWC, WS, WA etc missed 2004 entirely, so I’d assume they missed the boat on 2011, too.

Will you continue to buy blindly before tasting future red burgundy vintages?

How responsible do you think the critics have been in reporting/under-reporting the issue in 2004 and 2011?

Is there ANY way for a human to discern these offputting aromas in barrel, and if not, what’s the point of barrel tasting if it’s all a crap shoot in the end?

FTR, Bill Nanson was WAY ahead of the curve on this 2011 issue!

TTT

Bill Nanson was able to identify GMs in barrel samples

First of all this GM word which I think is ridiculous. There has always been lesser ripe vintages and therefore the wines are tasting a bit green if you like to call it that way. That greenness is to be found in every wine region in the world in some vintages. Some of the unripe flavors disappear with cellaring and some does not.
This is nothing new and therefore I don´t understand the mass panic. 2011 is a lesser ripe a vintage than 2009 and 2010 for sure, but it is not the kind of polluted vintage that some posters here tend to call it.

I don’t know if it is an inability to identify vs. an unwillingness to include that in the notes.

They are after all, a critical cog in the sale of burgundy. People’s livelihoods are at stake here.

That’s why a forum like this is so valuable.

I think you are conflating standard “unripe” greenness with what has come to be called “greenie meanies” (GM). Greenie Meanies (despite having the word “green” in the term) isn’t your standard issue unripe greenness. Frankly, GMs smell and taste unlike anything else I have ever encountered and are very different from the unripe character one normally encounters.

Does 2011 have 2004-styke GMs or just standard issue unripeness? Personally I don’t know but my one antidotal experience with a 2011 was that it smelled and tasted just like the 2004s smelled and tasted when they first started showing that characteristic.

Hans, whether or not the presence of a fault with wines in this vintage exists is still clearly of debate. The panic, however, is justifiable in that I personally will not dump $30k into what may be a total loss. Not willing to take that risk. Don’t have the opportunity to try the wines before buying, etc

La Paulee…

Hans Strand wrote:
First of all this GM word which I think is ridiculous. There has always been lesser ripe vintages and therefore the wines are tasting a bit green if you like to call it that way. That greenness is to be found in every wine region in the world in some vintages. Some of the unripe flavors disappear with cellaring and some does not.
This is nothing new and therefore I don´t understand the mass panic. 2011 is a lesser ripe a vintage than 2009 and 2010 for sure, but it is not the kind of polluted vintage that some posters here tend to call it.


Hans, whether or not the presence of a fault with wines in this vintage exists is still clearly of debate. The panic, however, is justifiable in that I personally will not dump $30k into what may be a total loss. Not willing to take that risk. Don’t have the opportunity to try the wines before buying, etc
Top

Rick,
I would never dump 30k into any vintage and certainly not into 2011. Which is OK, but nothing fantastic.

The 2004 nose is for sure very special and I have not found anything that reminds me of that in any of the wines I have had this far from 2011. I have just detected that it is less ripe than 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The wines have just a sort of greener pitch typical for this kind of vintage and that is only in the taste.

Hey guys! If you can, please post your notes on any and all '11s here - Report Back Here: 2011 red and white burgundy with/without Greenie Meanies (GMs) - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers. Using the working definition of a Greenie Meanie as “Pyrazine like flavors and/or scents - overtly green and chemical in nature - overt high toned broccoli - also can be described as crushed lady bugs. This should not including stem like flavors/scents that are a part of the wines from producers whom use stems during vinification.”

This should also give us a nice picture over time as to how these perceived scents/flavors show over time.

Over-stating a bit, Berry.
I simply pointed out at 2011 harvest that ‘if’ ladybugs were the reason for the ladybug smell in 04, then based on observation alone - and I have photos of lots and lots of bugs below the sorting tables from many villages in 2011 - we should be very circumspect about what 2011 might deliver. Thereafter, like 04, there was nothing to see for the first few months, but already sensitised by 04, me and many others (I had many invites to taste simply because some producers wanted my opinion on various cuvées) could start to find it as the CO2 from the malos faded - except where a lot of new oak was used. But we were looking for it, no-one was looking for it in 04s. If the 04 history plays out, more will be revealed as that oak fades - I’m pretty sure that some I think clean now may leave me thinking otherwise in 12 months. I simply had multiple opportunities to taste and happen to be sensitive to this…
That said, I put the info out there over 1 year ago, and it was reported here, so anyone bitching about their purchases will have little sympathy from me. Just the way it is…

I don’t feel like I was overstating it at all. You suspected there might be GMs and then reported on them when you tasted them in barrel. Its that simple. I appreciate you being humble but I think you really deserve credit here.

Kudos to Bill for noting a potential issue with the vintage.

Peter just for my interest why do you assume the the naysayers are correct ? I believe overwhelmingly on Jonathan’s thread most people are not having a problem.

+1

Nick - just trusting people at their word. What else can you go by?

I don’t recall anyone saying they tasted astringent, GM notes in 2005-2010, though there were a few who found rot in 2006 IIRC.

Not Peter but I’m taking the '11 GM warnings seriously due to experience of tasters reporting, known variability of sensitivity and the precedent of '04 GM taking awhile to become prominent enough to show itself widely.

2004 is the GM vintage
2011 is NOT

Some wines in 11 have the issue; many more do not.

To equate 04 Burg with 11 Burg is a huge mistake and unfair to the region and its growers.

You know where assuming gets you… be patient and evaluate the wines.

What do you mean by “equate”? 2004 has a bizarre anomaly characteristic that made many id not most wines flat out undrinkable (depending on one’s sensitivity). Some people are noticing the same characteristics in some 2011s. How do you not talk about this? Its a big deal. I think everyone is hoping that it doesn’t turn out as bad as 2004 and that it is limited to just a small percentage of wines in the long run, but to dismiss it or give people a hard time for discussing it seems totally unreasonable.

Sorry if Im being overly emphatic but Im hopped up on Beaujolais Nouveau.