What did you think of the 2009s at 5 years old? I think I had had some and liked them better than the 2015s, but I really don’t remember.
Howard:
I don’t remember drinking any in that time window. I tried about 40 of the better 2009s starting in late 2011 and into 2012 (many at the Paulee in SFO in Feb 2012). As you likely recall, the initial reviews were surprisingly positive, but by the time that the wines were arriving on shelves in the US a lot of questions were being asked. I tried another half dozen bottles in 2013. I was sufficiently unhappy with the vintage that I ended up selling at auction a number of 2009s that I had bought pre-arrival - particularly from Corton. I thankfully kept the 2009 Bouchard MP, Montrachet and Chevalier.
Thank you Don- really appreciate the enormous work and investment you and others are putting into this study. Small sample perhaps, but something of great value all the same.
Now that you are a few vintage dinners down the road, do you have any notions as to why 2005 is so greatly affected? That is an experience I have shared of late, and while I am not one of the really unlucky ones- I have noted more than one occasion where experienced tasters have reported premox in 2005 DRC Montrachet, which is otherwise thought to have been unaffected to my knowledge.
Tom:
Thank you. I never envisioned this would turn into a a 15 year adventure…
The question about why 2005 had such heavy incidence of premox has really bothered me, but I’m afraid I don’t have a definitive answer for you. I went back to my original notes from the 2005 dinners and to the original vintage descriptions from Messrs. Tanzer and Meadows looking for new insights, but I really didn’t find anything that seems explanatory.
Everyone agrees that that the 2005 whites were very ripe by any standard. There were commentaries about the wines being deep gold colored even early on. There were conflicting reports on acidity. Some reports I read said that the acidity was virtually all malic and was low to average. Mr. Meadows reported that acidity was at least average and that most wines finished the M/L with phs of 3.2 to 3.3, but he acknowledged that there were definitely some producers who added acid. However, this does not match with the BIVB data for the 2005 whites. According to the BIVB, the average acidity for the 2005 vintage was 4.6 grams per liter. This was was the lowest amount ever measured for the vintages from 1985 through 2009. At the same time, the level of sugar in the grapes in 2005 (205 grams per liter) was the second highest in that same group of vintages. Only 2006 had higher sugar levels. Everyone agrees that the M/L fermentations were very long in 2005 and it forced a number of producers to have longer elevage either in barrel (a possibility for premox) or in tank.
The low acidity and high sugar don’t seem really explanatory because the 2009 vintage had marginally better acidity at harvest (5.3 g/l [3d lowest]) and also very high sugar (202 g/l [3d highest]). Yet the premox incidence in the 2005 vintage was over 30% and the 2009 incidence was only 15%.
The one overwhelming impression about the wines at the 2005 dinners was the very high level of ripeness and their sweetness. The wines were so sweet that it got a little overwhelming. One of the comments from my original post after night two was: “the 2005 vintage is the most forward/ready to drink vintage we’ve tasted in the last eight premox series. 2005 is a fruit driven vintage and the acidity seems to range from slightly low to adequate with only a small handful of wines exhibiting the level of acidity you would expect at this stage.” The final Mostly Montrachet dinner turned into a disaster, with 7 of the 16 bottles being advanced or oxidized.
I looked for patterns among the wines too. There were no advanced or oxidized wines among the Chablis (which helped to keep the incidence lower on night one). But I will note that the 2005s didn’t taste like Chablis at all. Among the Cote de Beaune wines, the producers with the best premox track records, i.e. Coche-Dury, Leflaive (pre-2006), Roulot and Colin-Morey had no premox problems in 2005 and made the best wines.
On the other hand, almost all of the producers who had exhibited any level of premox problems prior to 2005 had premoxed bottles in our 2005 dinners: Jadot (2 of 3), LeMoine (3 of 3), Mikulski (2 of 2), Lafon (2 of 3), Drouhin (2 of 2), Boillot (3 of 7), Ramonet (1 of 3), Bouchard (2 of 3), Sauzet (1 of 2), Girardin (1 of 2), and Fontaine-Gagnard and Philippe Colin with one bottle each. The producers with premox histories who did not have premoxed bottles in 2005 were: Montille (2 wines, both fine), Pernot (2 wines both fine), Bonneau du Martrary and Colin-Deleger. Matrot MP wasn’t oxidized but was off and awful.
If Jasper Morris is monitoring the thread, maybe he can shed some light on this. I think I remember Jasper mentioning the unusual incidence in 2005 in the past.
Don
This is what I wrote about 2005 in my now slightly out of date paper on the premox pox. Written in 2013 maybe?
Growers commented during the harvest that the chardonnay must was oxidising very quickly. This may not be a bad thing however as it removes the oxidases at an early stage. First tastings showed rich, concentrated wines, sometimes low in acidity. Today, many 2005s offer a whiff of oxidation on first opening. My impression is that there is a trace, sometimes more, of superficial oxidation, with an immense core of very youthful tightly wound fruit which is in no way oxidised but is not yet open for business either. I am leaving my own cases safely (I hope safely!) in the cellar for a while yet, though it should be noted that the oxidised-burg group had a particularly poor showing from this vintage at their seven years on inspection point.
Note the reference to your event!
Two producers in particular from whom I bought 2005 were Lafon (several vineyards) and Leflaive Pucelles. I had my first bottle from each case last year, having deliberately held back following my theory of being able to ride out the pox period. We tried a couple of bottles at each at a dinner in London last spring. Here are my notes from that occasion:
As you may know, I think of 2005 as probably the best red Burgundy vintage of my working lifetime. I am also more of a believer than most in the white wines of the vintage, though they have been suffering from what is at least a superficial premature oxidation. However I don’t think I have ever been so thrilled with a barrel tasting than I was for this vintage chez Leflaive, after which I bought myself a case of their 1er cru Les Pucelles. The bottles sampled at this dinner in 2019 are the first from the case.
2005 Meursault Charmes 1er Cru Domaine des Comtes Lafon 92 ***
A tale of two bottles. The first has a fresh pale gold colour, the second is not much deeper but with a matt rather than a gloss finish. It is not shot on the nose but there is a rather tired feel to it nonetheless. The palate is still looking good, despite the biscuity edge at the finish. The other has a golden glow throughout, slightly honeyed but vigorous and all you might expect from a 14 year old Meursault premier cru from a good year, and delivers a noticeably fresher finish. The score is for the better bottle.
2005 Puligny-Montrachet Les Pucelles 1er Cru Domaine Leflaive 95 ****
Two superb bottles, very similar. Light green and gold colour showed that the wine was in rude health and the bouquet was beautifully elegant, nuanced yet still also precise. Not the weight of the Lafon wine but more elegance. The palate was equally subtly nuanced and the only critique was that the wine was not quite as persistent as one might have hoped, with a relatively soft finish. A joy to drink nonetheless.