Not only Volnay: Bize Vergelesses (from halves), for example, is gorgeous.
If you have time, read some of the material Roman has linked to. Variation in beetle population can be explained in part by winter temperatures: moderate temperatures allow larger populations to survive and burgeon during the growing season. The same pattern is observed in populations of bark beetles, which have decimated large swathes of western forests in recent years, as the frequency of moderate winters has ticked up.
I’m not sure if these bugs are a native or introduced species. In North America, per Roman’s sources, Asian bugs were introduced in order to predate aphid populations that were damaging soy bean crops. If the the bugs in the Burgundy vineyards were also introduced, then you would not expect to find any record of their activity before the time they were brought in by humans.
I am not sure to its validity but Ive read that the type of lady bug infestation one now sees in burgundy is indeed the Asian lady bugs that were brought in as organic pest control methods.
In 2001, the Ontario wine industry dumped over 1 million liters of wine that were deemed inappropriate for shelves because they were tainted by asian ladybeetles. One could debate whether all of the wines truly suffered from ladybug taint, and one could make a reasonable case that there were non-ladybug pyrazines affecting some of the wine. But I don’t think anyone argues that there weren’t many, many ladybug tainted wines. Unfortunately, this is a real thing. It happens. The real issue in my mind is that in burgundy, this problem, like other major systemic problems with burgundy wines (for example, premox) are shifted 100% to the buyer.
I have no experience with 2011. Have not and will not be buying any, as I stopped buying Burgundy after the 2006 vintage (for various reasons, including my age and my ample cellar). So…can’t shed any light on the comparison. Nor can I really share any light on the cause of the pyrazine pollution in the ‘04s, other than that credible winemakers who’ve posted on this board and some who haven’t believe that to have been the cause. That the Mugneret sisters (“Gibourg” is their father’s mother’s maiden name, and they both have their own married names, though they were born “Mugneret”) do not believe it, is another piece of evidence, I guess, FWIW. An ongoing controversy…about a flaw which is really “evil”, IMO, because of the various tasters’ varying sensitivities to things, so one can never tell anything from anyone else’s notes, as a rule, about the wines.
But, this thread raises in its first post (which subject has been promptly ignored) the value of professional tasters’ notes. To be brief, the 2004 reds caused me to drop all such subscriptions. I bought 2004s in 2006; then visited in 2007 and was overwhelmed with the plague when I tasted the bottled 2004s (and have been a “broken record” since). I was not at all prepared for what I found in 2007. Neither Burghound nor Tanzer nor anything else I’d read prepared me. The former, with whom I communicated after visiting was in denial about “missing” anything then. So, whether it’s the need of such tasters to taste in barrel and/or the inability of anyone to find the 2004 plague while the wines were in barrel (which I think might have been the case), it does raise the question of the reasonableness of relying on such notes …and tasters, in general. (And, the guy who posts?/ used to post here from CA who has a publication…I think…was and is oblivious to the flaw, which even adds more folly to relying on such publications).
So, whether it is a criticism of the “critics” themselves…or of the whole notion of relying on such tasting notes for such flaws…or anything (I do think barell tastings is as good a predictor of the future of a vintage as is possible), it does show things we all need to know in valuing those publications and tasters. Caveat emptor, I guess. Like with everything else…in wine and anything involving the senses…there is no substitute for personal experiences…and tasting onesself before buying, even if that results in more purchases of a narrow group of wines, rather than a broader approach.
Luckily, though, I’m done buying…and there was only one 2004 – that I know of-- in the vintages (1983-2006) I tasted very young and bought.
Bill, i’d like to buy a copy of your book on Amazon. You’re such an insider expert…you so go against the grain of what all of those biased people have to say…
I don’t remember about the 2004s, but I am gratefull that Bill N did ring the alarm early for the 2011. So, at least some critics can detect the phenomenon early. Kudos to Bill!
This being said, I don’t always agree with him on everything he writes… I take notice!
I personal buy any highly allocated wines year in and year out. The rest, I would only buy from the vintages that I like. I bought a lot of the 09s and only half of that in the 08 and the 10, due to price and availability. I only bought 8 bottles of the 11 reds. I didn’t get fourrier and dujac allocation.
The critics usually taste in barrel and it appears as GM doesn’t show at this stage. I also think that some of the critics scores are quite predictable. I am not disagreeing but just not much help making buying a decision.
e.g. Gevery commune, the baseline is
Bourgogne 87 points
Village 90 points
1er 92 points
1er CSJ 94 points
Chambertin and CdB 95 points
Say what you will about Bill.
He WAS the first wine writer (that I saw) that brought this to the attention of the public.
He saved me from buying any further 2004s and allowed me to sell off what little I had left.
Mega Kudos to Mr N…
Jonathan, this thread makes for interesting reading, and I understand the Cornwell premox-like service that you are trying to provide with the GM reporting thread. No harm in that, but its validity is highly questionable. Burgundy, especially young Burgundy, can be a challenge to understand. The palates and tasting experiences on this board are all over the place, just as they are on CT, and Burgundy drinkers do not dominate here. The GM definition seems unlikely to be applied with either precision or accuracy, and I am sure that many babies will be thrown out with the bath water by those who smell or taste nothing more than greenness in a young, closed Burgundy but are looking to be part of the Hunt for Green October. This thread makes it clear that there is no hard science yet, just observations, impressions and speculation. Important observations, impressions and speculations, mind you. Something appears to exist in at least two vintages that does not exist in others, and, like the premox phenomenon, there are questions that need to be answered. However, I think that trying to do that by committee by collecting what will necessarily be diverse and highly subjective opinions, backed by extensive experience in some cases and none or almost none at all in others, is more likely to muddy the waters than to clear them. The “mystery novel” of this thread may surface some reliable science eventually. Very doubtful that the GM thread will do that, unless it becomes the go-to thread for those who can offer some scientific explanations. If that is your intention, fine, but it seems a little odd to try to direct traffic there by denigrating this thread.
It is true that livelihoods may be at stake in Burgundy, as the ITBers are quick to point out, but in the wake of the premox disaster, and the larger context of consumer product safety issues and breaches of consumer trust by producers of wine and other products around the world, it is best to err on the aggressive side. Producers who feel that they have been wronged, or can help explain the phenomenon, are always welcome to participate here, directly or through their importers. One wonders, however, how much Burgundy would remain unsold because of negative press in this thread or Jonathan’s. Maybe not so much.
For the larger group: is there any known or suspected incidence of GM in vintages OTHER than 2004 and 2011?
![[worship.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/9/99a8907a1d5b3c023582052741dc72dc9823c044.gif "worship"){kind=small}
