Disappointed with the link. I thought I was going to get your tasting notes on 42 producers. ![[oops.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1f129ddad071ffe5db6c99817c3cab666035a70a.gif "oops"){kind=small}
Jeremy, herein lies the rub for me. LOVED the 10s. '05s, not so much (jury is still out on the 99s). If '15s lean toward '09 vs '10, I would go very light. Problems is, I’ll have to buy most before I get to taste. Looking forward to the notes we’re likely see coming out soon from Gilman and Tanzer to add a couple more data points.
Cheers ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Howard, I liked the wines at Mugneret-Gibourg quite a bit. NSG 1er Cru Chaignots and Clos Vougeot were absolutely beautiful and stood out the day I tasted them. I also felt an unusual high level of tannins, though. If very fine and ripe, they are not as integrated as it was the case at the same stage for the 2005s. Mid-palate in almost all wines showed a very good concentration and there is a strong feel of power/energy in the wines. However, and you mention it as well, it’s not as complete and “seamless” as 2010 (one of my favourite vintages) and it does not have the perfect compact structure of the 2005s (which may take quite some time to open up but when they do… ). I prefer them over the 2012s as well. Now, to be perfectly clear, I did never mean to say that the 15s are not good. But claiming that “it’s an amazing vintage, 2005 again” like I read/heard a few times is simply not the case for my taste.
OK, then I think we are pretty much in agreement - as is often the case - except that I found the MG wines more consistent than you did and not find them to be to tannic (my favorites were the Echezeaux and the Fuesselottes). My favorite vintages of the past number of years have been 1999, 2005 and 2010. Totally different from each other in character, but all great.
From 1999 to the present, I think I kind of like 2014 and 2015 about as much as any other vintage. Does not mean I like it better than 2001 or 2002, but also does not mean I like it less well than those vintages. I do not yet feel like I have a great handle on 2009 - I tend to think 2015 is better balanced than 2009, but time will tell. I have not yet tasted any 2013s. And, I liked 2012, seemed rich but somehow a bit dull to me. I am reserving judgment here also.
That leaves 2003, of course the strangest vintage I can remember ever having had. A lot of wines do not taste like Burgundy, but when they are on, they are on. For example, at Truchot, I put the 2003s right up there in quality with 1999 and 2005, something I never thought I would have said when I first tasted the wines when they were young.
I think we all make too many early vintage assessments and then are unwilling to change our minds. I like being surprised, at least when the surprise is to the upside. The one vintage that scares me is 2005 to be honest. I think there is so much fruit, etc., that it will outlast the tannins and acid and be as great as everyone predicts, but cannot say I am positive.
We are lucky. Since about 1995, the only really poor vintage was 2004. When has there ever been such a good string of vintages in history.
Gerhard,
I am glad you are able to make such comparisons and argue against the Lafarges - I just don’t have that much experience with older vintages, as I started visiting there about thirty years after you…
Michael, thanks for your posts. They’re roughly where my visits in June left me on the vintage. Good to hear about about Barthod Fuées, Véroilles and Cras, some of my favourite wines and sites (sadly I wasn’t able to visit this year). I love Mugneret-Gibourg but unfortunately the wines are very hard to get here.
That’s an interesting observation. My perception during my tastings was that the tannins are finer and more ‘enrobed’ than in 2005; and that was a comment that I heard from a number of producers and several well-informed long-time Burgundy residents too.
As for the Mugneret Gibourg wines, I shan’t comment on those until I have secured my allocation.
When it comes to heat stress, the variables are many:
-vine age (young vines and old vines can both be more resilient AND more stressed, depending on a different factors like soil type and depth…tricky to make it a linear causal relationship).
-which villages got a bit more rain than others at key points in the season
-richer, deeper soils that retain water better vs bedrock zero water retention
-exposure
-canopy management
-how slow/fast elevage is at a particular can make certain wines show more crudely vs more “in place” examples
Details details details.
Yes, on a few wines, and I mean very few, there were harsh tannins.
In general, suave, fine grained and enrobed tannin is the 2015 phenolic rule of thumb, certainly the overwhelming majority.
As for the Bertheau wines on which the thread started: I tasted them in spring and all I can say was that the Chambolle Villages and amoureuses were absolutely fabulous for their level. François’ style is light and elegant and 2015 just adds some more depth to them which makes them the best series of wines I have tasted from him.
I must say I’m surprised that Michael didn’t like the complete range of Maxime Cheurlin. When I tasted in spring I only noted that one wine really needed its élevage to make it really great wine. But never I tested any heat or overly tannins in his wines
Maxime’s wines are silken, infused pleasure bombs. Heat, irregularity, and tannic are three words that I would never associate with his '15s.
To each their own, I suppose.
Indeed, any fan of Bertheau’s style will adore the '15s. Fwiw, this is the last vintage that he is making his Bourgogne rouge. Sad but true.
All this just shows wines change, tasting conditions change, tasters change… and it is so difficult to predict how the wine will taste in a decade or 3.
It also seems that hot vintages need more time…
It is clear 2015 is a hot vintage
What is unclear is how great it is… or will be?
Funny indeed how perceptions can differ.
Maxime’s wines did lack acidity (he admitted it himself) and only the Echezeaux, Grands-Echezeaux and VR Beaux-Monts were really exceptional, for my taste. He produced wines that are quite silky though, this is true. And I thought that they were not out of balance either, the great depth of their minerality saving them from falling into the “heavy” category. However, some wines left me unimpressed. Then again, we’re talking about a great range of wines, of course. The emotion he manages to transmit to his wines is still there, pretty much in line with everything he has produced since the beginning. But 2015 is simply not the vintage I have preferred chez Cheurlin. I’m still a fan, I really like Maxime and how his emotion shows when he talks about his wines. Plus, I’m very jealous of his amazing meat slicer! 
As for Bertheau, I can only disagree with the statement “any fan of Bertheau’s style will adore the '15s”. This vintage did not suit his elegant, clean, perfumed and silky styled wines. I much prefer his '14s. For the 15s, if the villages and the Amoureuses were clearly above their appelation level, the 1er Cru and Charmes left no particular impression and the Bonnes-Mares was simply not in place.
Now, a couple of friends have visited Bertheau a week earlier than we did. They thought the Bonnes-Mares was great and the Amoureuses not in place. We agreed on the other wines, though. So… again, it’s a snapshot. And impressions may differ but I stand clearly in the camp of “the hype for the 15s is not justified”.
I will return in February and taste at the other domaines I did not have the time to visit this time. If I doubt my impressions will change but it is not impossible, of course.
Indeed, to each their own.
I found Bertheau’s 1er and Charmes to be downright classic in their composition, each a clear and distinct step up in material and “seriousness”, hierarchy classically respected.
I found the vintage perfectly well suited to his style, with some additional sappiness vs '13 (as an example) that will only give them broader appeal. I adore the treble higher acid style of '13 at Bertheau, my favorite vintage i’ve worked with. But I also adore '14 and '15 and '10. Different and all different shades of beautiful.
I have a very hard time believing that if someone likes Bertheau’s style of pale and pretty, that they would do anything other than say yum and swoon when trying the '15s.
Lots of data points are good things, nonetheless!!
I don’t look for perfection in the given moment, knowing it is a passing glimpse of a body in motion.
I look for composition and harmony.
Are all elements present, and in what proportion?
I only have come to trust my instincts more and more.
Absolutely. It is clear that the wines at this stage are only at one particular point in their making. But they’re not too far away from what they will look like once in bottle (many are less than 6 months away from bottling). My experience is that I can well assess general characteristics of the vintage and have a quite good feeling about some wines. I do the very same for almost 20 years now and always taste the wines at about this stage. Very much like you, I care much less about aromatics and “readyness” than about the structure of the wines: integration and style of tannins, acidity, fruit, alcohol, general structure.
And you are absolutely right! That’s exactly what I do as well.
It is a good thing that we do not all like the same vintages and wines and have different experiences and feelings… it’d be quite boring otherwise.
On this note, I’ll finish my glass of '12 Roumier CM Les Cras. Hot vintage, little acidity but the “cold” and “vertical” minerality of Cras lifts the wine and beyond the velvety feel and rich fruit, it carries it all along a quite impressive finish. Love it. Though '12 is not my favourite vintage!
Cheers!
Agreed, and I never understood why 2012 is so much celebrated…
Hi Michael,
We tasted '15 reds at Claude Marechal, DRC, de Vogue, Cecile Tremblay, Lamy, Lucien-Jacob, Comte Liger-Belair and Jean Fournier. I just went back over my notes and whilst this is definitely a vintage of the sun with excellent ripeness, the words mineral, balance, harmony, detail and energy kept popping up in my notes. I think its a fantastic vintage for reds from my initial tastings.
Best Regards
Jeremy
Celebrated from a red Burgundy perspective…with 2011 being one of the lesser red burg years, people were looking to continue the party that 2010 started.
Bill Nanson is also a fan:
“Of-course much of the hype surrounding the 2015 reds has some basis in fact – it is simply a great vintage…”
His report is out now.
Claude Kolm is getting his reports on the vintage up:
http://thefinewinereview.blogspot.fr/p/2015-burgundies-preliminary-report-from.html
http://thefinewinereview.blogspot.com/p/further-observations-of-2015-red-wines.html
Good advice here, I believe: “Don’t let the anticipation of the 2015s keep you from trying and buying 2014s. As I stated above, as a vintage, I’ve never seen whites of the style and overall quality that match those of 2014. As for reds, it is a vintage that contrasts sharply in in style with 2015, being a typical Bourguignon vintage with lower alcohols and ripeness than 2015, but offering excellent freshness, energy, and precision.”
Claude reports this take on the 2015s from Aubert de Villaine: “Overall, Aubert de Villaine compares the vintage to a marriage of 2003 and 2005; the former for the richness (although there is no surmaturité in these 2015s) and the latter for the structure of the wines. The wines were more concentrated than the 2009s, he continued, and added that maybe there was an element of 1999 in them, too. Finally, as for quality of the fruit, he thinks the wines resemble 1949 (regarded by many as the greatest red Burgundy vintage of the twentieth century). At first he was afraid that the wines would be too porty, but they came around in barrel.”
Perhaps at the best advice is to buy 14s and 15s (and the vintages before and after).
Jancis Robinson has her report (on the reds) out:
I have also bought and read John Gilman’s report.
I find it funny that they both define the vintage as great, but then if you read the whole report you see several problems related to the very warm summer mentioned. Gilman in particular writes that wines are excellent at the top wineries he visited and reports about. Elsewhere things may look very different (not as good).
Jancis even goes as far as defining masochists people like Blair Pethel (whose name she misspelled) who apparently didn’t like the vintage. But then she mentions the case of Cecile Tremblay whose wines have ABV above 14%, and that overall, acidity levels were on the low side.
Has anybody read what Bill Nanson has written? (of course, if Bill himself is willing to say a few words here…)