The Burgundy (aka $100) Daily / Weekly Drinker

[JWalter]

?

My answer is still Fourrier Gevrey VV/Aux Ech (as I have discussed with you!). Have a 2002 Aux Ech I’m looking forward to trying soon.

What is the difference between the VV and Aux? Had the 2017 VV and it was awesome, and they seem to be in the same price range. Any thoughts or preferences between the two?

[jason_stein]

?

My answer is still Fourrier Gevrey VV/Aux Ech (as I have discussed with you!). Have a 2002 Aux Ech I’m looking forward to trying soon.

What is the difference between the VV and Aux? Had the 2017 VV and it was awesome, and they seem to be in the same price range. Any thoughts or preferences between the two?

They’re different parcels. Aux Echezeaux comes from the namesake lieu-dit, and the Gevrey VV comes mostly from Champ Perrière. All old vines. The Gevrey VV tends to be the darker, meatier, denser of the two, and the Aux Echezeaux lighter, more floral, more aromatic. They both have their merits and I enjoy and cellar both.

[P_L_owet]

I am really puzzled by this thread. The three criteria are 1) you can buy 3-5 cases of it, 2) it tastes good young, and 3) it’s under $100. But then we’re told basically to set aside category 3, the point is to talk about good drinkers without price constraint being an issue. Frankly that means you can also set aside category 1, since there really aren’t many Burgundies south of the trophy level that you can’t buy 3-5 cases of if you’re willing to shop around and pay market rate for them (though why anybody would want to drink 60 bottles of the same wine in a year is a mystery to me). So all we’re left with then, is “Burgundies that taste good young” - is that it?

To summarize: this is now another “name your favorite Burgundies under $200” thread.

For me, it’s another “why I’m buying less Burgundy” thread.
I’m less and less confident that I will greatly enjoy the burgs that are priced in my comfort zone. And I don’t even care about the “taste good young” criterion. I do like some of the suggestions though. Too bad I’m more price sensitive than OP.
Regards,
Peter

[Alex_Valdes]

I am really puzzled by this thread. The three criteria are 1) you can buy 3-5 cases of it, 2) it tastes good young, and 3) it’s under $100. But then we’re told basically to set aside category 3, the point is to talk about good drinkers without price constraint being an issue. Frankly that means you can also set aside category 1, since there really aren’t many Burgundies south of the trophy level that you can’t buy 3-5 cases of if you’re willing to shop around and pay market rate for them (though why anybody would want to drink 60 bottles of the same wine in a year is a mystery to me). So all we’re left with then, is “Burgundies that taste good young” - is that it?

To summarize: this is now another “name your favorite Burgundies under $200” thread.

For me, it’s another “why I’m buying less Burgundy” thread.
I’m less and less confident that I will greatly enjoy the burgs that are priced in my comfort zone. And I don’t even care about the “taste good young” criterion. I do like some of the suggestions though. Too bad I’m more price sensitive than OP.
Regards,
Peter

Yes the number one criterion for most is price. I am much more price sensitive than assumed but regardless of my personal situation I was looking to expose the space between the two heavily trotted, polar paths of high QPR and trophy wines.

Maybe this topic is less interesting to people, but more and more I see people, people I’m used to seeing drink trophy wines regularly, mixing it up with wines I would put in this middle camp. This piqued my curiosity.

[Marcu_Stanley]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

[Alex_Valdes]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

Thanks for this synthesis Marcus. It is one of the avenues I was hoping this conversation would go down.

[Tomas_Costa]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

I’m really glad you posted this opinion. Seeing the prices for these village wines, I’ve often wondered to myself whether they are merely an unbalanced aberration - the consequence of a tide that has raised all boats as far as prices in Burgundy are concerned - or whether they do have a quality of winemaking and a complexity in their profile that justify the investment.

[Marcu_Stanley]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

I’m really glad you posted this opinion. Seeing the prices for these village wines, I’ve often wondered to myself whether they are merely an unbalanced aberration - the consequence of a tide that has raised all boats as far as prices in Burgundy are concerned - or whether they do have a quality of winemaking and a complexity in their profile that justify the investment.

I had the same question. But after trying a few I do feel like they are an interesting new niche that can be worthwhile, although unfortunately the cost is such that it’s tough to make them anything like “daily drinkers” unless you’re rich. It’s like at their best they are substantial wines, but optimized for charm instead of power. And as I said, on a shorter time horizon they can be the better drink than a higher level, more expensive wine. I guess you could say Bordeaux second wines may be aiming for the same niche, but I have found Burgundy villages to be more interesting, complex, and terroir driven wines in their own right than the second labels, which are more like “worse” versions of the big guys.

[Alex_Valdes]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

I’m really glad you posted this opinion. Seeing the prices for these village wines, I’ve often wondered to myself whether they are merely an unbalanced aberration - the consequence of a tide that has raised all boats as far as prices in Burgundy are concerned - or whether they do have a quality of winemaking and a complexity in their profile that justify the investment.

I had the same question. But after trying a few I do feel like they are an interesting new niche that can be worthwhile, although unfortunately the cost is such that it’s tough to make them anything like “daily drinkers” unless you’re rich. It’s like at their best they are substantial wines, but optimized for charm instead of power. And as I said, on a shorter time horizon they can be the better drink than a higher level, more expensive wine. I guess you could say Bordeaux second wines may be aiming for the same niche, but I have found Burgundy villages to be more interesting, complex, and terroir driven wines in their own right than the second labels, which are more like “worse” versions of the big guys.

Yes the cost is high. It is the sense I get from producers that they like these wines a lot to drink regularly. Too bad it’s hard for most of us to do the same.

[Tomas_Costa]

I’m really glad you posted this opinion. Seeing the prices for these village wines, I’ve often wondered to myself whether they are merely an unbalanced aberration - the consequence of a tide that has raised all boats as far as prices in Burgundy are concerned - or whether they do have a quality of winemaking and a complexity in their profile that justify the investment.

I had the same question. But after trying a few I do feel like they are an interesting new niche that can be worthwhile, although unfortunately the cost is such that it’s tough to make them anything like “daily drinkers” unless you’re rich. It’s like at their best they are substantial wines, but optimized for charm instead of power. And as I said, on a shorter time horizon they can be the better drink than a higher level, more expensive wine. I guess you could say Bordeaux second wines may be aiming for the same niche, but I have found Burgundy villages to be more interesting, complex, and terroir driven wines in their own right than the second labels, which are more like “worse” versions of the big guys.

Yes the cost is high. It is the sense I get from producers that they like these wines a lot to drink regularly. Too bad it’s hard for most of us to do the same.

I remember having the '14 Rossignol-Trapet Gevrey VV, and thinking to myself how much I’d like to have a case of that wine if only it cost half of what it does. As long as the appellation system keeps linking greater structured wines with low production, we’re screwed.

[MChang]

I’m really glad you posted this opinion. Seeing the prices for these village wines, I’ve often wondered to myself whether they are merely an unbalanced aberration - the consequence of a tide that has raised all boats as far as prices in Burgundy are concerned - or whether they do have a quality of winemaking and a complexity in their profile that justify the investment.

I had the same question. But after trying a few I do feel like they are an interesting new niche that can be worthwhile, although unfortunately the cost is such that it’s tough to make them anything like “daily drinkers” unless you’re rich. It’s like at their best they are substantial wines, but optimized for charm instead of power. And as I said, on a shorter time horizon they can be the better drink than a higher level, more expensive wine. I guess you could say Bordeaux second wines may be aiming for the same niche, but I have found Burgundy villages to be more interesting, complex, and terroir driven wines in their own right than the second labels, which are more like “worse” versions of the big guys.

Yes the cost is high. It is the sense I get from producers that they like these wines a lot to drink regularly. Too bad it’s hard for most of us to do the same.

These basically are daily drinkers for me. I end up drinking about one bottle every 2 days, which helps. If you’re polishing off a bottle a night, certainly that’d be pricier.

[Alex_Valdes]

I had the same question. But after trying a few I do feel like they are an interesting new niche that can be worthwhile, although unfortunately the cost is such that it’s tough to make them anything like “daily drinkers” unless you’re rich. It’s like at their best they are substantial wines, but optimized for charm instead of power. And as I said, on a shorter time horizon they can be the better drink than a higher level, more expensive wine. I guess you could say Bordeaux second wines may be aiming for the same niche, but I have found Burgundy villages to be more interesting, complex, and terroir driven wines in their own right than the second labels, which are more like “worse” versions of the big guys.

Yes the cost is high. It is the sense I get from producers that they like these wines a lot to drink regularly. Too bad it’s hard for most of us to do the same.

These basically are daily drinkers for me. I end up drinking about one bottle every 2 days, which helps. If you’re polishing off a bottle a night, certainly that’d be pricier.

I am trying to find my sweet spot. I’ve pretty much found it for whites (though will continue to rotate wines through) but haven’t quite found it for reds. I am picking up a couple of the suggestions I haven’t tried

[Keith_Levenberg]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

Aside from price, what’s the niche? Okay, so they fit into a very narrow category of “wines you can spend $200 on that still have some early-drinking charm” but it’s not like they’re any better now that they’re $200 wines than they were not all that long ago when they were $40 wines - you can put any wine in the world in that same niche by cranking up the price 500%. Fairly useless niche to me unless you’d rather spend $200 than $40.

Actually, with few exceptions, I never found village level Burgundy from famous Cote de Nuits producers a good value even when they were closer to $40. Would much rather drink a good Santenay or Savigny producer’s 1er crus, for example. For a long time it was un-PC to say this because you had all these big spenders who were stuck with pallet-loads of village wine as the bundled tie-in product to get cheap access to grand crus, so they were personally invested in pretending those wines were more special than they were.

[Alex_Valdes]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

Aside from price, what’s the niche? Okay, so they fit into a very narrow category of “wines you can spend $200 on that still have some early-drinking charm” but it’s not like they’re any better now that they’re $200 wines than they were not all that long ago when they were $40 wines - you can put any wine in the world in that same niche by cranking up the price 500%. Fairly useless niche to me unless you’d rather spend $200 than $40.

Actually, with few exceptions, I never found village level Burgundy from famous Cote de Nuits producers a good value even when they were closer to $40. Would much rather drink a good Santenay or Savigny producer’s 1er crus, for example. For a long time it was un-PC to say this because you had all these big spenders who were stuck with pallet-loads of village wine as the bundled tie-in product to get cheap access to grand crus, so they were personally invested in pretending those wines were more special than they were.

For this, price is unimportant. It’s really a question of ability to source and wine accessibility. Before the boom prices were much more compressed, but now prices are stretched so it’s hard to have a conversation ignoring the stretching of prices.

I take your point as: “I don’t care if we are talking $40 or $400 village wine they aren’t really that great; the real gems are the grand crus and, if you plan to drink simpler wine, don’t bother with Cote de Nuit village - drink Santenay.”

Is that what you are saying? If so I am interested in what others think.

[Marcu_Stanley]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

Aside from price, what’s the niche? Okay, so they fit into a very narrow category of “wines you can spend $200 on that still have some early-drinking charm” but it’s not like they’re any better now that they’re $200 wines than they were not all that long ago when they were $40 wines - you can put any wine in the world in that same niche by cranking up the price 500%. Fairly useless niche to me unless you’d rather spend $200 than $40.

Actually, with few exceptions, I never found village level Burgundy from famous Cote de Nuits producers a good value even when they were closer to $40. Would much rather drink a good Santenay or Savigny producer’s 1er crus, for example. For a long time it was un-PC to say this because you had all these big spenders who were stuck with pallet-loads of village wine as the bundled tie-in product to get cheap access to grand crus, so they were personally invested in pretending those wines were more special than they were.

I can only speak for wines I have had, which are hardly exhaustive. But for me wines like the Grivot Combe d’Orveaux, the Bertheau Chambolle Musigny, and various Geantet-Pansiot Gevrey-Chambertin lieu-dits rewrote what I thought was possible at “village” level. Yes they have inflated in price from $40-50 to $70-80, but they were also significantly better than e.g. the Pavelot Savigny 1ers I have had. I haven’t had pallet loads of anything so I’m mostly kind of spitballing.

[MChang]

I feel like village-level Burgundy by good producers is really carving out an entirely new niche in the wine world. These are fairly high-priced wines, equivalent to prestige labels in most other world wine regions, including Bordeaux (where $70-100 will get you a respected classed growth). At the same time, stylistically they are self-consciously “smaller”, earlier drinking wines than other Burgundy. You combine these two things, they are simultaneously expected to be very high quality wines, complex, sophisticated, and capable of aging, but also “friendlier” and more accessible wines. It’s an interesting niche. Can a wine simultaneously live up to these prices and the producer/village reputation but also be open and accessible? Although I’m not happy about the prices I do feel like when they are done right these wines do fill a need for serious but early-drinking and charming wines. If you are drinking a Burgundy at five or seven years old a good village should be better than a grand cru at three+ times the price.

Aside from price, what’s the niche? Okay, so they fit into a very narrow category of “wines you can spend $200 on that still have some early-drinking charm” but it’s not like they’re any better now that they’re $200 wines than they were not all that long ago when they were $40 wines - you can put any wine in the world in that same niche by cranking up the price 500%. Fairly useless niche to me unless you’d rather spend $200 than $40.

Actually, with few exceptions, I never found village level Burgundy from famous Cote de Nuits producers a good value even when they were closer to $40. Would much rather drink a good Santenay or Savigny producer’s 1er crus, for example. For a long time it was un-PC to say this because you had all these big spenders who were stuck with pallet-loads of village wine as the bundled tie-in product to get cheap access to grand crus, so they were personally invested in pretending those wines were more special than they were.

With only a few exceptions I would prefer to drink village wines from “higher quality” producers than wines from the Cote de Chalonnaise, Savigny, etc. in many cases because of accessibility, but also because of character. I don’t think wines like Roumier CM village are a particularly good value or probably good for a “daily drinker” at the $200 price point but it’s still an outstanding wine that will be accessible much sooner than say, a Pavelot or Jadot Savigny Dominode, IMO.

I have had experience with pallet loads of red Burgundy, as Marcus put it, because it’s almost exclusively what I drink, along with a little Champagne. I probably have one of the more unbalanced cellars on the forum.

[R_Frankel]

I’m with Michael that I’d rather drink village wines from solid producers than 1ers from Santenay, Savigny, or other more distant parts of Burgundy. I do drink both in fact because I like variety, but I find myself enjoying the CdN village wines more. And I’m talking producers like Bertheau, Fourrier, Hudelot-Noellat, Arnoux, Drouhin, Lafarge, Clerget to name more than a few in my cellar. Yes, I’d love to drink more Mugnier, Vogue, Dujac, Roumier, etc. village wines but they have climbed out of my cost comfort zone (or way beyond).

[Tomas_Costa]

I’m with Michael that I’d rather drink village wines from solid producers than 1ers from Santenay, Savigny, or other more distant parts of Burgundy. I do drink both in fact because I like variety, but I find myself enjoying the CdN village wines more. And I’m talking producers like Bertheau, Fourrier, Hudelot-Noellat, Arnoux, Drouhin, Lafarge, Clerget to name more than a few in my cellar. Yes, I’d love to drink more Mugnier, Vogue, Dujac, Roumier, etc. village wines but they have climbed out of my cost comfort zone (or way beyond).

Ordered a case of 2017 Hudelot Noellat Chambolle. This thread has inspired me!

[jason_stein]

I’m with Michael that I’d rather drink village wines from solid producers than 1ers from Santenay, Savigny, or other more distant parts of Burgundy. I do drink both in fact because I like variety, but I find myself enjoying the CdN village wines more. And I’m talking producers like Bertheau, Fourrier, Hudelot-Noellat, Arnoux, Drouhin, Lafarge, Clerget to name more than a few in my cellar. Yes, I’d love to drink more Mugnier, Vogue, Dujac, Roumier, etc. village wines but they have climbed out of my cost comfort zone (or way beyond).

Ordered a case of 2017 Hudelot Noellat Chambolle. This thread has inspired me!

An excellent choice. Great wine.

[Sean_S_y_d_n_e_y]

For the price, I’d rather drink commune/1er/lieu-dit wines from great Côte de Beaune/Chalonnaise/Mâcon producers than the lower-level Côte de Nuits top-tier offerings.

Yes, of course, I’d love to drink great Nuits producers’ entry-level wines as daily drinkers (or even 1-2 per week drinkers). But I just can’t afford to, and the pleasure-to-price that the aforementioned non-Nuits producers give is fantastic.