I guess that’s the other reason I’m less enthused of heather and someone else’s suggestion of ducs and tom’s suggestion of la tache. A monopole doesn’t allow you to separate producer from vineyard.
There is that, Michael.
Oh, and Heather? Welcome to the chaos!
My nominee would be the “La Forest” Chablis from Dauvissat. Always at least good, usually very good, occasionally great. Reflects the vintage, and is super enjoyable in almost every year. 2015 was an exception – didn’t think it measured up, should probably have gotten some anyway just to see what was happening in 5 or 10 years, but other than that it has been a treat to try them almost every year.
Thanks. I appreciate this. Is Chantal (who hosted us when we visited there in 2018) married to Didier or Jean-Louis?
This raises the question as to whether we want a producer or vineyard that shows everything great and troubling about a vintage. Isn’t the point of a grand cru vineyard that it ripens better in off years and does not generally show everything troubling about a vintage. Would this mean that a grand cru can never be the answer to Mike’s question? How about a premier cru? In fact, would the best vineyard to do what Mike asks be a single parcel villages wine that would show everything great and troubling about a vintage? ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
Same thing with a producer. The best producers in my experience make up for the deficiencies of a vintage - e.g., see Truchot or d’Angerville in 2004. They do not show what is troubling about a vintage in minute detail.
Mike, you cannot continue to stay a neutral observer. What are you looking for?
Interesting. I think what you’re really saying about Fourrier isn’t vintage specific, but rather terroir specific - while I agree he has a clear signature, the wines vary by vintage, sometimes significantly.
It’s also interesting that you use Barthod as a counterexample - a producer who I think, has a very strong signature, but in other direction from Fourrier. Along with de Vogue, I find Barthod’s wines strucutred, monolithic and not vintage representative.
Who knew wine tastes differed? ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Like anything Burgundy, the original question belies easy answers.
I love both Fourrier and Barthod. I just find that Fourrier, while showing differences up and down the line, tastes mostly of Fourrier. That’s why I can largely scratch my Fourrier itch with the Gevrey VV. (Kind of the same way I largely can scratch my Mugnier itch with the Chambolle AOC or Marechale.) Barthod obviously gives a very different impression–more structured, mineral, and angular. But I do find her wines quite delineated by both terroir and vintage.
All of that said, my post was mostly focused on a single wine I drank the other day. I don’t really have a good answer to the original question. Too many variables: Burgundies by and large show huge vintage differences (when compared to something like Napa Cab), but it’s impossible to disaggregate vintage, terroir, and producer.
If two people have the same view, it is not a real Burgundy thread. 
That’s precious, Howard—I’ll have to remember that one!
mmm, you give me some food for thought. I think, on reflection, that I would mean in my original question that yes—the challenges and difficulties of the vintage should show through as well. I haven’t/hadn’t gone deeply into the subconscious for this, but maybe the idea of a vineyard that acts as a sort of “litmus test” for me in order for me to be able to assess whether to buy heavily from that particular vintage or not.
I again understand the minefield—many different microclimes, terroirs, approaches by winemakers and, above all (and the intent of the question) your or my personal preferences.
Let’s expand this then. When a critic writes a tasting note and says “a sleeper of the vintage” or “stellar for this vintage”, does that mean something to you, or mean less than something to you? What is the context you see a critic using when they make such a comment?
To your first point; that goes back to my initial point that some vineyards/producers are going to not be really ready to drink early, or at least not be worth drinking early. Also, most people wouldn’t want to open some of these wines to benchmark the vintage. Even if opening a 16 La Tache would give you an idea of how the 16 vintage was; would you really want to do it?
I think knowing a producer did well in a difficult vintage is useful information, but I’m not sure if that speaks to your first point. I agree with Ryan that Barthod is true to vintage character but I’m not sure that’s a good thing in some vintages. Her Cras is a beautiful sexy wine in 15 but I find the 11 to be a bit austere for my taste, though very representative of the vintage. In that sense, I’d generally pass, and would prefer more manipulation but a more pleasurable wine, but that’s just my preference.
No worries, Howard. I think it is Jean-Louis.
I agree with Michael. We all say that we want a wine that is true to its terroir or its vintage or whatever, but does that extend to wanting a 2004 to really accentuate the greenie meanies? It has always been my view on terroir that it is best to highlight terroir on the best terroirs, the la Taches, etc., where the vineyard really has something to say but that blending may make more sense on lesser terroirs - not sure it always makes sense to bottle villages wines parcel by parcel (there are exceptions).
With vintages, sure you want to highlight what makes a 2010 great or a 1999 great, but what about 2004 and 2011. Don’t you want to hide some of the characteristics of those vintages - or from a consumer perspective just not buy those vintages.
Hard to do. What do you do when there is hail in Volnay but not in the rest of Burgundy. Where one village gets a lot of rain at harvest but another village does not get very much. Some soils drain better than other soils - the better draining ones may be better in a wet vintage but not when their is a drought and you want soil to retain water.
Having a warmer vintage may help a cooler village or vineyard (say St. Aubin) but hurt other villages or vineyards. Or, if there is a lot of wind, one vineyard may be protected from the wind by hills to the west while another vineyard is exposed.
How can one vineyard be a litmus test for these differences and many, many others.
It probably can’t, and I probably wouldn’t silo it so much myself. Maybe your comments are showing me that the question borders on an unknowable one.
I think, though, that some of the responses have skewed my (flawed?) question. My question wasn’t meant to concentrate on “is there a vineyard that makes the wine you like the best in any vintage”. It wasn’t–and isn’t–a question about people’s wants/preferences. It was whether there was a vineyard that expresses consistently vintage characteristics—good and bad–for any given year. And there can be more than one vineyard 
My increasingly unreliable neurons say that there has been a thread on the parallel track of whether there’s a producer that people point to as best representing the characteristics of each vintage. I might do some digging…
Mike, thanks for starting an excellent thread. I hope that you realize and the reason you (and I) are not at the same place where we were at the beginning is because people have made some excellent points. Hope to learn further here through additional posts. Nothing in wine is as cerebral as Burgundy.
Maybe we can eventually use this to form the basis for an offline theme for the next time “Mike on Tour” winds its way here.
This is a very interesting thread and, despite the fact that I do drink a good amount of Burgundy, I don’t feel even close to qualified to name a specific vineyard. I also am not sure this is possible anyway.
Coming at the question in another way, if I’m picking one vineyard to judge a vintage off of, the type of vineyard I would look for would be large with producers who make wines in a wide range of styles so that you can get a real feel for what the vintage tastes like while varying lots of factors (stems, new oak, maceration time etc.). If I had to guess, I’d probably pick a large, high quality premier cru like Vosne Romanee Suchots or Beaux Monts. The very best grand crus may be a little too consistent to show the effects of the vintage across the hierarchy so perhaps a premier cru would split the difference so you could get some degree of insight into how the vintage would effect village wines. By having a larger vineyard with perhaps some topographic variation you could also see how certain exposures likely fared by matching wines with a map of the plots. Of course, you’ll never get what the impact of hail is if it didn’t hail on your vineyard of choice but it’s an attempt.
Doesn’t every winemaker moderate to high end non-interventionist vintner express vintage variability especially for pinot noir? So as long as the underlying grapes used and winemaking style is consistent, you are seeing an expression of the vintage at the particular site. As new vines age at the site it changes, as old vines get more mature, the pinot mutates and matures.
So pick your favorite winemaker, in the good grape growing years, the fruit will be more floral, deep, earthy, red, blue, black fruited and on the not so great years, the wine will be less of the positive characters that you are looking for. I have been picking the best possible years for wines since burgundy is expensive any year. Not sure the benefit of trying in the less wonderful years, but I can see why one might if you really like the winemaker/domaine, etc to support their efforts.
It would be interesting to focus on a moderate or villages selection where the domaine has consistent fruit. Then you can really tell if the terroir is expressive. It is good to see these examples, as possibilities to expand the palate.
I agree Fourrier does taste of Fourrier, but his 1er crus (especially Combe and Clos St. Jacques) are considerably more complex than the village (which is one of only two red villages I buy in any meaningful amounts). Whereas to me, Barthod also has a signature - like de Vogue, it’s very steely and structured Chambolle. To me, Fourrier makes Chambolle in Gevrey, while Barthod makes Gevrey in Chambolle. I’d rather drink Chambolle.
I think there’s no answer to this question because Burgundy isn’t a blending region. In Barolo, for example, there’s an easy answer - Bartolo Mascarello. They have 3 parcels, they blend them, and they just take what nature gives them. They make the wine based on what nature did that year. But with so little blending being done in Burgundy, why would you expect vintage rather than terroir to shine through? Especially when a criticism that wines are in some ways homogenized or made to suit a vintage rather than the plot is more of a criticism in Burgundy than a compliment?
For example - Barthod has holdings in 8 1er crus in Chambolle. Imagine if she blended some of them for some kind of grand cuvee - I imagine that would produce a wine that would show vintage well, but I expect any kind of suggestion to that effect would be greeted with horror (though I expect it would produce a better wine). Whereas each of her 1er crus are meant to evoke the terroir of the cru, so almost by definition a comment of “this tastes like a xx vintage” carries a negative connotation. “This is 2011” means the wine is green. But who says “this is such a 2010” when the wine is good? You’d just say “this is such a great Le Cras” if you think that’s what it is. So I simply don’t think there’s an answer to this. The best “blend” that I buy is certainly Lignier’s MSD 1er cru VV, but that’s two relatively adjacent plots in Morey; they’re not that dissimilar.
I do, Howard, definitely. I’m quite thrilled at how much thought everyone has put into their responses here. Many thanks to all. One of the crucial things that keeps me engaged as a 'phile is that I am constantly learning. No bad thing, that.
If people feel comfortable doing so, I’d love to hear thoughts about my upthread question of what comes to mind when a critic’s tasting note says “sleeper of the vintage” or “stellar for the vintage”