My Confession
I enjoy reading tasting notes from critics whose palates I can relate to. I often envy those people whose experiences are both rare and hard to come by but have stopped reading ostentatious tasting notes where the wines discussed are beyond most mortal souls’ reach. (How helpful is reading someone saying how wonderful the 1949 Cheval Blanc was, or how great was that bottle of Richebourg 1929 from Romanée-Conti, quite honestly?)
Nonetheless, I am both privileged and fortunate to have a tasting journey filled with rare and exceptional bottles far beyond my limited financial resources. It has been my blessing that I had been invited to participate in numerous occasions where rare and expensive bottles were poured. They certainly enrich my experience and I have always been eager to share my encounters with those who share the same passion.
My purpose of sharing my tasting experience is simple. Firstly, I hope that my notes will serve as an advice for those who plan to buy those wines. It also should provide a clue to those who own the same bottles to decide whether and when they ought to be drunk. Lastly, my secret ambition through these notes is to inspire more people to explore the delights and intricacies of the immense world of wines.
It may appear to many people that I often encounter “mind boggling” bottles. Quite the contrary, I am actually rarely impressed by most of the wines I taste these days. Good bottles are hard to come by and great bottles are especially rare. I might attend three or four events a month and find just a few wines worth mentioning. There are far too many monotonous, cosmetically constructed wines in the marketplace today. The differences between them are marginal and such internationalization of wines is not a cause for celebration, but in fact is best avoided. These wines have little soul and personality to speak about; often only excessive wood treatments and overbearing alcohol which prevent me from taking the next sip.
On a refreshing note, this past September had been filled with many exceptional wines tasting events. Besides sourcing for those rare bottles, ensuring that they were at pristine condition (bottle variation are high risks amongst mature wines), the efforts in sequencing the wines, and pairing it with the right food (so as not to be overpowered by one another) all require a good dose of experience and, most certainly, some luck. Fortunately, our hosts seem very well equipped indeed to cope with such demanding task.
I enjoy reading tasting notes from critics whose palates I can relate to. I often envy those people whose experiences are both rare and hard to come by but have stopped reading ostentatious tasting notes where the wines discussed are beyond most mortal souls’ reach. (How helpful is reading someone saying how wonderful the 1949 Cheval Blanc was, or how great was that bottle of Richebourg 1929 from Romanée-Conti, quite honestly?)
Nonetheless, I am both privileged and fortunate to have a tasting journey filled with rare and exceptional bottles far beyond my limited financial resources. It has been my blessing that I had been invited to participate in numerous occasions where rare and expensive bottles were poured. They certainly enrich my experience and I have always been eager to share my encounters with those who share the same passion.
My purpose of sharing my tasting experience is simple. Firstly, I hope that my notes will serve as an advice for those who plan to buy those wines. It also should provide a clue to those who own the same bottles to decide whether and when they ought to be drunk. Lastly, my secret ambition through these notes is to inspire more people to explore the delights and intricacies of the immense world of wines.
It may appear to many people that I often encounter “mind boggling” bottles. Quite the contrary, I am actually rarely impressed by most of the wines I taste these days. Good bottles are hard to come by and great bottles are especially rare. I might attend three or four events a month and find just a few wines worth mentioning. There are far too many monotonous, cosmetically constructed wines in the marketplace today. The differences between them are marginal and such internationalization of wines is not a cause for celebration, but in fact is best avoided. These wines have little soul and personality to speak about; often only excessive wood treatments and overbearing alcohol which prevent me from taking the next sip.
On a refreshing note, this past September had been filled with many exceptional wines tasting events. Besides sourcing for those rare bottles, ensuring that they were at pristine condition (bottle variation are high risks amongst mature wines), the efforts in sequencing the wines, and pairing it with the right food (so as not to be overpowered by one another) all require a good dose of experience and, most certainly, some luck. Fortunately, our hosts seem very well equipped indeed to cope with such demanding task.
Burg@Kheam Hock
Prior to this dinner – which I would elaborate in a little while – I attended a tasting of Clos de Vougeot dinner organized by a group of burgundy fanatics. I have always searched for the answer of whether a winemaker’s influence is more significant than a single vineyard’s imprint in a bottle of burgundy. It surely would have been easier if all burgundies were produced by one person or a single domaine, and the vineyards were all treated equally. In the Clos de Vougeot tasting, I noticed that the style of each producer was quite recognizable. Quite often I could guess a particular Clos Vougeots was made by so-and-so from such-and-such communes. For example, Méo-Camuzet’s Clos de Vougeots distinctly tastes like a wine from Vosne-Romanée, while Hudelot-Noëllat’s unique style was unmistakable. Also perhaps it was unfair to taste multiple vintages from the identical climat, and therefore wines such as 1990 Jadot’s Clos de Vougeot and 2002 Gros Frère et Soeur Clos de Vougeot “Musigni” could be so effortlessly spotted. However, the result of this tasting has again indicated that there is an equal and marked presence of winemaking style as much as regional influences in each bottle of Clos de Vougeots.
In the 1998 Burgundy grand cru tasting (Burg@Kheam Hock), the wines were provided directly from the walk-in cellar of the host (dinner took place at the host’s residence). Almost all of the bottles were immediately uncorked and served with minimum aeration without decanting.
First of all, a few words about 1998 red burgundy. 1998 was a vintage that was both challenging in the vineyard and the cellar. The erratic weather featured an April spring frost and an outbreak of oïdium (powdery mildew) which dramatically curbed the crop levels of Côte de Beaune (particularly evident in Meursault and Puligny-Montrachet) as well as some higher spots in Chambolle-Musigny, Vosne-Romanée, Gevrey-Chambertin and Marsannay. Pinot Noir was said to be less severely damaged than Chardonnay, since their vines were at their early stage of growing seasons. To some observers, this might even have been beneficial in areas such as Volnay and Chambolle-Musigny as it reduced the potential yields. Jacques Lardière of Maison Louis Jadot has accurately summed up the cause of the vintage’s low yielding aspect: “the frost for the whites and poor flowering for the reds were the main cause for the vintage low yielding.”
The uneven flowering was followed by cool, rainy weather. However, the cool and wet growing season drastically turned into scorching high temperatures in August. It was reported that the extreme heat in August was the hottest and driest August since 1947! Vineyards with south and southwest facing were affected by sunburn. Vines on the slopes and those without deep root systems literally shut down due to dehydration. Thereafter, early September rains came to revitalize the vines, but this also posed a threat to potentially diluting the quality and threatened an onset of rot. Fortunately, the rain ended on the 17th and the dry weather held through 26th before the major downpours. This period was described by the vignerons in burgundy as “la fenêtre de beau temps” (the window of good weather) and was, fortunately, when most producers brought in their crops thereby averting disaster.
In summary, 1998 featured wines with firm tannins, in some cases leaning toward hardness. The sulfur treatments required to counter oïdium and the onset of rot might have triggered the effect of thickening the skins of pinot noir. In addition, the combined variety of effects such as uneven ripening caused by sunburn (shriveled grapes), rotten and underripe grapes, were altogether another set of challenge for the Burgundians. For those who sorted severely hence eliminating inferior grapes fetched better results than those who did not. In addition, gentle maceration/cuvaison or extractions were also required in order not to further harden the already tannic wine.
It was equally challenging for the winemakers during elevage. Apparently the fruits appeared diminished right after the malolactic fermentation and only the tannins remained. Due the vintage’s high tannin component, the 1998s have resisted oxidation well in barrel, but it gave false signals to some local enologists that the wine did not absorb sulfur well and in fear of the low-acid aspect in this vintage, many vignerons were encouraged by their enologists to prescribe a generous dosage of SO2. Sulfur has an effect of hardening the wine, and the early hardness found in many 1998s were exactly the results of such a move.
This vintage is clearly a very difficult vintage to access young. A prominent American wine critic has downright written off the vintage saying that the tannin will either never shed away or, even if it does, there would be no more fruits left. Still, there were many top producers were very optimistic about their 1998s. Jacques-Frédéric Mugnier called this “a super vintage… best since 1993…”, while others like Charles Rousseau said, “I like it… better than 1997…”. Jean-Nicolas Méo: “a serious vintage with structure and tannic finish… it is for true lovers of Burgundy…” Lalou-Bize Leroy: “very harmonious… I like them…”
What do we think?
Before I move on to talk about the tasting, let us take a quick look at the concept of Grand Cru, a term associated only with the Old World.
One of my favorite columnists, Matt Kramer, in his recent article “An American Grand Cru?” made some comments about the meaning of this term. Kramer said, “…there is no official definition but rather a concept about grand cru. It refers to both specific places and particular wines, or rather a site that we (can) judge in terms of the quality and character that the wine produces.” He further added, “…they are not just stronger, more enduring but tower past their competitors with greater resonance and dimensionality, and above all, singularity.” It became clear to me that the meaning of grand cru is in every way connected to the concept of “terroir”. Of all the experts who attempt to explain “terroir”, I have found C. Van Leeuwen’s summary most helpful: “terroir is a result of an integration of natural environment (soil, climate, topography), biological (variety, rootstock) and human (of wine, winemaking and history).
The Burg@Kheam Hock tasting featured grand crus from Gevrey-Chambertin, Morey-St.-Denis, Chambolle-Musigny, Vosne-Romanée and Aloxe-Corton, all of which summarily covered most of the major communes of Burgundy. Unlike my previous tasting reports, where my notes served as an expression and interpretation of my personal preferences, in this issue I shall attempt to provide an in-depth background on the soil composition, various sub climat (lieux-dits) and historical aspects on each grand cru to highlight the uniqueness and singularity of these very special climats. I will also reflect the stylistic leanings and my previous knowledge of the producers as additional background to serve as an insight on how these factors could potentially influence the resulting wines. I hope that this approach will better expound my thoughts and establish my tasting conclusions on more objective and tangible facts.
The first two whites served this evening were a pair of 1996 Corton-Charlemagne from Rollin Père et Fils and Bonneau du Martray. Both producers are based in Pernand-Vergelesses. Corton-Charlemagne is a very unique white Burgundy and is perhaps the most challenging to access when young. The vines of Corton-Charlemagne are planted at an altitude of approximately 320-370 meters, with Corton rouge at the bottom and white Corton above. The soil here is Oxfordian limestone based (instead of Bathonian or Bajocian as in the case for Côte-de-Nuits) covered up with white marl rich in clay and a precarious layer of topsoil frequently and easily washed away by rainstorms. Today, there are total of 51 hectares in production instead of the previous 72 hectares. Unlike other grand cru white burgundy such as Bâtard-Montrachet or Chevalier-Montrachet where you could easily tell their pedigree from the refinement and intensity of its wines, Corton-Charlemagne in the hands of producers such as Faiveley, Louis Jadot, Roumier or Leroy tend to be racy, flinty, extremely lightweight in its mouth-feel, marked at times with razor-sharp acidity and austerity. In its youth, one could be deceived and erroneously pass it as a humble Bourgogne Blanc in a blind tasting. Time is essential to fully understand this white, with which the acidity will eventually round out and the final intensity and complex flavors will be fully unveiled. To be quite honest, I rarely have the opportunity to taste mature versions of this very understated wine. For those who have little patience to spare, my suggestion is to try the wines from producers such as Louis Latour, Clos-Frantin (by Bichot), Bouchard, and occasionally, Bonneau du Martray, as their Corton-Charlemagne tend to be more readily accessible.
I continue to believe the 1996 white Burgundy to be among the very best vintages this past two decades. The finest examples from this vintage remain youthful today, with sound acidity and latent intensity that will eventually flesh out in time.
Rollin lived up to neither the vineyard’s nor the vintage’s reputation. The slightly candied, vitamin (what John Kapon of Acker might have called it), uncomplicated nose was followed by a round, slightly fat mouth-feel which quickly fell apart on the palate. Although I admired the acidity and the steely personality, the acid soon became disturbing after the fruits disappeared. A disappointment. Bonneau du Martray was clearly a much better performer tonight. I would easily mistake it for a Puligny-Montrachet. Very delicate, with floral, smoky, leesy white peach, gentle yet showy palate. The flavors were quite persistent with well-buffered acidity to ensure good precision and a Chablis flint-like tinge showed up in the mouth. On my second visit, it unveiled more fatness and an interesting hazelnut nuance. Bonneau du Martray’s Corton-Charlemagne vineyard parcels are at En Charlemagne and Le Charlemagne, which are west-facing, unlike the traditional Côte d’Or vineyards which are lined in south- to south-eastern exposures.
If Chablis is famous for it unique Kimmeridgian and Portlandian limestone, then Côte d’Or is known for their Bajocian and Bathonian limestone.
Majority of burgundy is underpinned by limestone soils. During the Jurassic periods (195 to 135 million years ago), central France was once under ocean. According to most burgundians, the upper Jurassic stage, where Kimmeridgian limestone (Chablis) is found and middle Jurassic, where Bajocian and Bathonian (Côte d’Or) are found produce the best wines in the area. The whole Côte d’Or formation extends from the top of the Bajocian stage (Gevrey-Chambertin) to the bottom of the lower Bathonian stage (Vosne & Chambolle). Bajocian consists of more clay and marl, while Bathonian is a brown soil that is rich in pebbles. It is said that Bajocian soil with its clay content higher in proportion to the limestone rock make heaviest wines, which is the case for Gevrey-Chambertin and Morey-St-Denis grand crus. The poor, hard, infertile Bathonian soils, on the other hand, provide good drainage and help to infuse the wines with a refined, sensuous and charming character. It is said that the stream-flow has a deciding factor on which commune is richer in Bajocian or Bathonian limestones. For instance, villages such as Vougeots (Vouge), Nuits-St.-George (Meuzin), Pommard (Dheune), Savigny-les-Beaune (Rhoin) and Santenay (Avant Dheune) are communes cut through by streams carry eroded soils from the hills have significantly higher percentage of clay-based Bajocian compared to the stream-free villages such as Volnay or Chambolle-Musigny where the more pebbly Bathonian are present. Both limestones can at times interplay in communes such as Vosne-Romanée and Flagey-Echézeaux. For example, Romanée-Saint-Vivant is on Bajocian marl-based soil instead of the rest of grand cru such as, Romanêe-Conti, La Tâche and Richebourg, which are lying on the decomposed limestone of Bathonian.
Besides the soil fundamentals, site exposition, inclination of the vineyard, the various subsoil and topsoil have direct and indirect effects on the resulting grand crus and sub climats. For instance, the marne blaches or white oolite is said to give Le Chambertin its pronounced minerality. Although Clos de Bèze shares identical soil, it contains no marne blaches. So just this one difference may notably influence the end results of both wines, all things being constant. In another example, terre rouge, or brown marl found in Bonnes-Mares is perhaps largely influential to impart burliness, concentration and ageworthy character to the wines from this climat.
Our first flight of red is a pair of Bonnes-Mares from Nicolas Potel and Drouhin-Laroze. The most attractive and sexy bottle of Bonnes-Mares I have ever tasted was from Domaine Fougeray de Beauclair, which is the only Bonnes-Mares produced entirely from the Morey’s section of this vineyard. In the past, this grand cru rarely stood out in any tasting I attended. Stylistic differences apart, most Bonnes-Mares are dense, masculine and often marked with pronounced earth and undergrowth in a slightly rustic package. The wine’s understated personality is further disadvantaged when standing next to the more glamorous, captivating, and showstoppingly sublime Le Musigny, with whom it is often paired with (for one reason or another). Even the great premier cru Chambolle-Musigny Les Amoureuses is often more attractive and interesting to taste than this foursquare reserved grand cru.
Geographically, Bonnes-Mares is an interesting grand cru as it lies in both Morey-Saint-Denis and Chambolle-Musigny communes. Part of the Bonnes-Mares lands next to the wall of Clos-de-Tart of Morey-Saint-Denis while a large majority is placed next to Chambolle-Musigny premier crus of Les Sentiers, Les Baudes, Les Lavrottes and just above Les Fuées. The pebble and stone content in these vineyards are high thereby providing good drainage, in turn producing wines with finesse. In some areas, however, such as the parcel owned by de Vogüé, the soils have a high composition of red clay terre rouge and are believed to make wines with power and concentration.
1998 Douhin-Larose version of Bonnes Mares was distinctly light in style, with aromas of earth, stemmy cherries and raspberries in a round and forward frame. Reasonable richness and texture, showing more plum on the palate that led to a powdery tannin finish. Not a particularly strong show. Nicolas Potel is one of my most admired négociants, and his 2002 Vosne-Romanée Malconsorts stood up along with only one other bottle as my best wine at the last Vosne-Romanée 1er Cru Challenge. Unfortunately, 1998 Nicolas Potel Bonnes Mares did not produce the same level of excitement and reflected the same problem I encountered from his 2001s: poor quality stems. Henri Jayer, the great maestro of burgundy and a strong believer of destemming once asked, “have you ever put one (stem) in your mouth and like it?” to vindicate his approach. Today, whilst many young protégé of Jayer’s have practiced destemming, there is still no shortage of people who practice otherwise and intentionally add stalks back to the must. To the latter, the stems act as an anti-oxidation agent and provide the necessary structure for better longevity. The famous domaines that carry out such a practice include Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Lalou-Bize Leroy, Domaine Dujac, and Comte Armand. A number of new generation producers such as Jean-Frédéric Mugnier, Christopher Roumier, and Bruno Clair also practice only partial destemming. I suppose the key point I would like to address is that if the stems are ripe and given circumstances such as the weather and vineyard conditions are favorable (e.g., old vines or low-yielding vineyard), there is no harm with such practices. Being a négociant, Potel sources his fruits from various farmers, and sometimes, he has to purchase musts as opposed to grapes, exposing him to the risks of less-than-desirable quality and maturity of the stems blended into those musts. Undesirable stems could cause the wine to taste musty, with excessive underbrush, occasionally minty and eucalyptus elements. The wine can also come across with astringently dry finish, making the wine to taste leaner. Tonight, Potel’s Bonnes-Mares was impressively deep in color. The nose was distinctly meaty with some dark raspberries leaning toward a roasted spectrum. There is some animal, brett element to it. The palate was firm and structured with obvious stalky elements. The finish showed a dry edge and dusty tannins – probably caused by unripe stems?
The following pairs of Morey St.-Denis grand crus are owned almost entirely by two families, or near-monopoles, to put it another way. The author of Burghound, Allen Meadows considers Morey-St.-Denis to have more high-quality wine producers than any other villages. There are a total of five grand crus – Clos St. Denis (6.62 ha), Clos de la Roche (16.90 ha), Clos des Lambrays (8.84 ha), Clos de Tart (7.53 ha) and Bonnes Mares (1.52 ha, owned exclusively by Bernard Clair, father of Bruno Clair and he leased entirely to Domaine Fougeray de Beauclair, the rest of which are in Chambolle-Musigny). The first grand cru vineyard ever recorded in history was in fact Clos-de-Tart, which was exploited by nuns of Notre-Dame-de-Tart in 1125.
There is no question that the finest grand cru of Morey today is Clos de la Roche. Situated north to the border of Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Les Combottes and sharing the same Bajocian limestone base that gently mixes clay and limestone rock scree which gives excellent drainage, an advantage during rain-plagued vintages. Clos de la Roche is considered by many authorities to be the biggest and classiest of all Morey grand crus. Allen Meadows describe this unique grand cru as possessing the qualities of its neighbors – the earth of Gevrey and the lushness of Chambolle – while injecting the “finesse” of Morey and somehow magically concoct all these into a unique character all of its own.
Clos des Lambrays was not a grand cru until 1981. The previous owner, the Cosson family, did a poor job managing this vineyard, letting the vineyard decline and failed to replant the dead old vines. After the demise of Renée Cosson in 1977, the new owner, the Saier family began a substantial investment in the replanting and rehabilitation of Clos des Lambrays. The restorations were costly and time consuming. By the time the vineyard finally reached an acceptable age of maturity in 1994, the Saier brothers were forced to put the domaine on sale due to financial difficulty. In late 1996, a German businessman, Gunter Freund and son Hans-Joachim purchased the Clos des Lambrays and retained the longtime régisseur, Thierry Brouhin.
Clos des Lambrays is one of the steepest vineyards amongst Morey grand crus. Unlike Clos de la Roche, which is Bajocian limestone based, the soil in Clos des Lambrays is less marly, and is more pure limestone and sand. There are three lieux-dits (sub-climats): Meix Rentier, which is the smallest and is at the bottom of the slope, consisting of more clay; Les Larrets, from the central portion and the largest of the three, the soil of which consists more of sand; and Les Bouchots, which is the most elevated, and due to the cool air that flows down through the Combe, takes the longest time to ripen its grapes. For many connoisseurs of burgundy, Clos des Lambrays rarely lived up the quality of a grand cru. It neither has the richness and power of Clos de la Roche nor the finesse of Clos St.-Denis. Interestingly, Clos des Lambrays can age extraordinary well despite its lightweight personality. Could it be the age of its vines (replanted only in 1979) which causes Clos des Lambrays to suffer that lack of extract and intensity?
In the 1998 Burgundy grand cru tasting (Burg@Kheam Hock), the wines were provided directly from the walk-in cellar of the host (dinner took place at the host’s residence). Almost all of the bottles were immediately uncorked and served with minimum aeration without decanting.
First of all, a few words about 1998 red burgundy. 1998 was a vintage that was both challenging in the vineyard and the cellar. The erratic weather featured an April spring frost and an outbreak of oïdium (powdery mildew) which dramatically curbed the crop levels of Côte de Beaune (particularly evident in Meursault and Puligny-Montrachet) as well as some higher spots in Chambolle-Musigny, Vosne-Romanée, Gevrey-Chambertin and Marsannay. Pinot Noir was said to be less severely damaged than Chardonnay, since their vines were at their early stage of growing seasons. To some observers, this might even have been beneficial in areas such as Volnay and Chambolle-Musigny as it reduced the potential yields. Jacques Lardière of Maison Louis Jadot has accurately summed up the cause of the vintage’s low yielding aspect: “the frost for the whites and poor flowering for the reds were the main cause for the vintage low yielding.”
The uneven flowering was followed by cool, rainy weather. However, the cool and wet growing season drastically turned into scorching high temperatures in August. It was reported that the extreme heat in August was the hottest and driest August since 1947! Vineyards with south and southwest facing were affected by sunburn. Vines on the slopes and those without deep root systems literally shut down due to dehydration. Thereafter, early September rains came to revitalize the vines, but this also posed a threat to potentially diluting the quality and threatened an onset of rot. Fortunately, the rain ended on the 17th and the dry weather held through 26th before the major downpours. This period was described by the vignerons in burgundy as “la fenêtre de beau temps” (the window of good weather) and was, fortunately, when most producers brought in their crops thereby averting disaster.
In summary, 1998 featured wines with firm tannins, in some cases leaning toward hardness. The sulfur treatments required to counter oïdium and the onset of rot might have triggered the effect of thickening the skins of pinot noir. In addition, the combined variety of effects such as uneven ripening caused by sunburn (shriveled grapes), rotten and underripe grapes, were altogether another set of challenge for the Burgundians. For those who sorted severely hence eliminating inferior grapes fetched better results than those who did not. In addition, gentle maceration/cuvaison or extractions were also required in order not to further harden the already tannic wine.
It was equally challenging for the winemakers during elevage. Apparently the fruits appeared diminished right after the malolactic fermentation and only the tannins remained. Due the vintage’s high tannin component, the 1998s have resisted oxidation well in barrel, but it gave false signals to some local enologists that the wine did not absorb sulfur well and in fear of the low-acid aspect in this vintage, many vignerons were encouraged by their enologists to prescribe a generous dosage of SO2. Sulfur has an effect of hardening the wine, and the early hardness found in many 1998s were exactly the results of such a move.
This vintage is clearly a very difficult vintage to access young. A prominent American wine critic has downright written off the vintage saying that the tannin will either never shed away or, even if it does, there would be no more fruits left. Still, there were many top producers were very optimistic about their 1998s. Jacques-Frédéric Mugnier called this “a super vintage… best since 1993…”, while others like Charles Rousseau said, “I like it… better than 1997…”. Jean-Nicolas Méo: “a serious vintage with structure and tannic finish… it is for true lovers of Burgundy…” Lalou-Bize Leroy: “very harmonious… I like them…”
What do we think?
Before I move on to talk about the tasting, let us take a quick look at the concept of Grand Cru, a term associated only with the Old World.
One of my favorite columnists, Matt Kramer, in his recent article “An American Grand Cru?” made some comments about the meaning of this term. Kramer said, “…there is no official definition but rather a concept about grand cru. It refers to both specific places and particular wines, or rather a site that we (can) judge in terms of the quality and character that the wine produces.” He further added, “…they are not just stronger, more enduring but tower past their competitors with greater resonance and dimensionality, and above all, singularity.” It became clear to me that the meaning of grand cru is in every way connected to the concept of “terroir”. Of all the experts who attempt to explain “terroir”, I have found C. Van Leeuwen’s summary most helpful: “terroir is a result of an integration of natural environment (soil, climate, topography), biological (variety, rootstock) and human (of wine, winemaking and history).
The Burg@Kheam Hock tasting featured grand crus from Gevrey-Chambertin, Morey-St.-Denis, Chambolle-Musigny, Vosne-Romanée and Aloxe-Corton, all of which summarily covered most of the major communes of Burgundy. Unlike my previous tasting reports, where my notes served as an expression and interpretation of my personal preferences, in this issue I shall attempt to provide an in-depth background on the soil composition, various sub climat (lieux-dits) and historical aspects on each grand cru to highlight the uniqueness and singularity of these very special climats. I will also reflect the stylistic leanings and my previous knowledge of the producers as additional background to serve as an insight on how these factors could potentially influence the resulting wines. I hope that this approach will better expound my thoughts and establish my tasting conclusions on more objective and tangible facts.
The first two whites served this evening were a pair of 1996 Corton-Charlemagne from Rollin Père et Fils and Bonneau du Martray. Both producers are based in Pernand-Vergelesses. Corton-Charlemagne is a very unique white Burgundy and is perhaps the most challenging to access when young. The vines of Corton-Charlemagne are planted at an altitude of approximately 320-370 meters, with Corton rouge at the bottom and white Corton above. The soil here is Oxfordian limestone based (instead of Bathonian or Bajocian as in the case for Côte-de-Nuits) covered up with white marl rich in clay and a precarious layer of topsoil frequently and easily washed away by rainstorms. Today, there are total of 51 hectares in production instead of the previous 72 hectares. Unlike other grand cru white burgundy such as Bâtard-Montrachet or Chevalier-Montrachet where you could easily tell their pedigree from the refinement and intensity of its wines, Corton-Charlemagne in the hands of producers such as Faiveley, Louis Jadot, Roumier or Leroy tend to be racy, flinty, extremely lightweight in its mouth-feel, marked at times with razor-sharp acidity and austerity. In its youth, one could be deceived and erroneously pass it as a humble Bourgogne Blanc in a blind tasting. Time is essential to fully understand this white, with which the acidity will eventually round out and the final intensity and complex flavors will be fully unveiled. To be quite honest, I rarely have the opportunity to taste mature versions of this very understated wine. For those who have little patience to spare, my suggestion is to try the wines from producers such as Louis Latour, Clos-Frantin (by Bichot), Bouchard, and occasionally, Bonneau du Martray, as their Corton-Charlemagne tend to be more readily accessible.
I continue to believe the 1996 white Burgundy to be among the very best vintages this past two decades. The finest examples from this vintage remain youthful today, with sound acidity and latent intensity that will eventually flesh out in time.
Rollin lived up to neither the vineyard’s nor the vintage’s reputation. The slightly candied, vitamin (what John Kapon of Acker might have called it), uncomplicated nose was followed by a round, slightly fat mouth-feel which quickly fell apart on the palate. Although I admired the acidity and the steely personality, the acid soon became disturbing after the fruits disappeared. A disappointment. Bonneau du Martray was clearly a much better performer tonight. I would easily mistake it for a Puligny-Montrachet. Very delicate, with floral, smoky, leesy white peach, gentle yet showy palate. The flavors were quite persistent with well-buffered acidity to ensure good precision and a Chablis flint-like tinge showed up in the mouth. On my second visit, it unveiled more fatness and an interesting hazelnut nuance. Bonneau du Martray’s Corton-Charlemagne vineyard parcels are at En Charlemagne and Le Charlemagne, which are west-facing, unlike the traditional Côte d’Or vineyards which are lined in south- to south-eastern exposures.
If Chablis is famous for it unique Kimmeridgian and Portlandian limestone, then Côte d’Or is known for their Bajocian and Bathonian limestone.
Majority of burgundy is underpinned by limestone soils. During the Jurassic periods (195 to 135 million years ago), central France was once under ocean. According to most burgundians, the upper Jurassic stage, where Kimmeridgian limestone (Chablis) is found and middle Jurassic, where Bajocian and Bathonian (Côte d’Or) are found produce the best wines in the area. The whole Côte d’Or formation extends from the top of the Bajocian stage (Gevrey-Chambertin) to the bottom of the lower Bathonian stage (Vosne & Chambolle). Bajocian consists of more clay and marl, while Bathonian is a brown soil that is rich in pebbles. It is said that Bajocian soil with its clay content higher in proportion to the limestone rock make heaviest wines, which is the case for Gevrey-Chambertin and Morey-St-Denis grand crus. The poor, hard, infertile Bathonian soils, on the other hand, provide good drainage and help to infuse the wines with a refined, sensuous and charming character. It is said that the stream-flow has a deciding factor on which commune is richer in Bajocian or Bathonian limestones. For instance, villages such as Vougeots (Vouge), Nuits-St.-George (Meuzin), Pommard (Dheune), Savigny-les-Beaune (Rhoin) and Santenay (Avant Dheune) are communes cut through by streams carry eroded soils from the hills have significantly higher percentage of clay-based Bajocian compared to the stream-free villages such as Volnay or Chambolle-Musigny where the more pebbly Bathonian are present. Both limestones can at times interplay in communes such as Vosne-Romanée and Flagey-Echézeaux. For example, Romanée-Saint-Vivant is on Bajocian marl-based soil instead of the rest of grand cru such as, Romanêe-Conti, La Tâche and Richebourg, which are lying on the decomposed limestone of Bathonian.
Besides the soil fundamentals, site exposition, inclination of the vineyard, the various subsoil and topsoil have direct and indirect effects on the resulting grand crus and sub climats. For instance, the marne blaches or white oolite is said to give Le Chambertin its pronounced minerality. Although Clos de Bèze shares identical soil, it contains no marne blaches. So just this one difference may notably influence the end results of both wines, all things being constant. In another example, terre rouge, or brown marl found in Bonnes-Mares is perhaps largely influential to impart burliness, concentration and ageworthy character to the wines from this climat.
Our first flight of red is a pair of Bonnes-Mares from Nicolas Potel and Drouhin-Laroze. The most attractive and sexy bottle of Bonnes-Mares I have ever tasted was from Domaine Fougeray de Beauclair, which is the only Bonnes-Mares produced entirely from the Morey’s section of this vineyard. In the past, this grand cru rarely stood out in any tasting I attended. Stylistic differences apart, most Bonnes-Mares are dense, masculine and often marked with pronounced earth and undergrowth in a slightly rustic package. The wine’s understated personality is further disadvantaged when standing next to the more glamorous, captivating, and showstoppingly sublime Le Musigny, with whom it is often paired with (for one reason or another). Even the great premier cru Chambolle-Musigny Les Amoureuses is often more attractive and interesting to taste than this foursquare reserved grand cru.
Geographically, Bonnes-Mares is an interesting grand cru as it lies in both Morey-Saint-Denis and Chambolle-Musigny communes. Part of the Bonnes-Mares lands next to the wall of Clos-de-Tart of Morey-Saint-Denis while a large majority is placed next to Chambolle-Musigny premier crus of Les Sentiers, Les Baudes, Les Lavrottes and just above Les Fuées. The pebble and stone content in these vineyards are high thereby providing good drainage, in turn producing wines with finesse. In some areas, however, such as the parcel owned by de Vogüé, the soils have a high composition of red clay terre rouge and are believed to make wines with power and concentration.
1998 Douhin-Larose version of Bonnes Mares was distinctly light in style, with aromas of earth, stemmy cherries and raspberries in a round and forward frame. Reasonable richness and texture, showing more plum on the palate that led to a powdery tannin finish. Not a particularly strong show. Nicolas Potel is one of my most admired négociants, and his 2002 Vosne-Romanée Malconsorts stood up along with only one other bottle as my best wine at the last Vosne-Romanée 1er Cru Challenge. Unfortunately, 1998 Nicolas Potel Bonnes Mares did not produce the same level of excitement and reflected the same problem I encountered from his 2001s: poor quality stems. Henri Jayer, the great maestro of burgundy and a strong believer of destemming once asked, “have you ever put one (stem) in your mouth and like it?” to vindicate his approach. Today, whilst many young protégé of Jayer’s have practiced destemming, there is still no shortage of people who practice otherwise and intentionally add stalks back to the must. To the latter, the stems act as an anti-oxidation agent and provide the necessary structure for better longevity. The famous domaines that carry out such a practice include Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Lalou-Bize Leroy, Domaine Dujac, and Comte Armand. A number of new generation producers such as Jean-Frédéric Mugnier, Christopher Roumier, and Bruno Clair also practice only partial destemming. I suppose the key point I would like to address is that if the stems are ripe and given circumstances such as the weather and vineyard conditions are favorable (e.g., old vines or low-yielding vineyard), there is no harm with such practices. Being a négociant, Potel sources his fruits from various farmers, and sometimes, he has to purchase musts as opposed to grapes, exposing him to the risks of less-than-desirable quality and maturity of the stems blended into those musts. Undesirable stems could cause the wine to taste musty, with excessive underbrush, occasionally minty and eucalyptus elements. The wine can also come across with astringently dry finish, making the wine to taste leaner. Tonight, Potel’s Bonnes-Mares was impressively deep in color. The nose was distinctly meaty with some dark raspberries leaning toward a roasted spectrum. There is some animal, brett element to it. The palate was firm and structured with obvious stalky elements. The finish showed a dry edge and dusty tannins – probably caused by unripe stems?
The following pairs of Morey St.-Denis grand crus are owned almost entirely by two families, or near-monopoles, to put it another way. The author of Burghound, Allen Meadows considers Morey-St.-Denis to have more high-quality wine producers than any other villages. There are a total of five grand crus – Clos St. Denis (6.62 ha), Clos de la Roche (16.90 ha), Clos des Lambrays (8.84 ha), Clos de Tart (7.53 ha) and Bonnes Mares (1.52 ha, owned exclusively by Bernard Clair, father of Bruno Clair and he leased entirely to Domaine Fougeray de Beauclair, the rest of which are in Chambolle-Musigny). The first grand cru vineyard ever recorded in history was in fact Clos-de-Tart, which was exploited by nuns of Notre-Dame-de-Tart in 1125.
There is no question that the finest grand cru of Morey today is Clos de la Roche. Situated north to the border of Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Les Combottes and sharing the same Bajocian limestone base that gently mixes clay and limestone rock scree which gives excellent drainage, an advantage during rain-plagued vintages. Clos de la Roche is considered by many authorities to be the biggest and classiest of all Morey grand crus. Allen Meadows describe this unique grand cru as possessing the qualities of its neighbors – the earth of Gevrey and the lushness of Chambolle – while injecting the “finesse” of Morey and somehow magically concoct all these into a unique character all of its own.
Clos des Lambrays was not a grand cru until 1981. The previous owner, the Cosson family, did a poor job managing this vineyard, letting the vineyard decline and failed to replant the dead old vines. After the demise of Renée Cosson in 1977, the new owner, the Saier family began a substantial investment in the replanting and rehabilitation of Clos des Lambrays. The restorations were costly and time consuming. By the time the vineyard finally reached an acceptable age of maturity in 1994, the Saier brothers were forced to put the domaine on sale due to financial difficulty. In late 1996, a German businessman, Gunter Freund and son Hans-Joachim purchased the Clos des Lambrays and retained the longtime régisseur, Thierry Brouhin.
Clos des Lambrays is one of the steepest vineyards amongst Morey grand crus. Unlike Clos de la Roche, which is Bajocian limestone based, the soil in Clos des Lambrays is less marly, and is more pure limestone and sand. There are three lieux-dits (sub-climats): Meix Rentier, which is the smallest and is at the bottom of the slope, consisting of more clay; Les Larrets, from the central portion and the largest of the three, the soil of which consists more of sand; and Les Bouchots, which is the most elevated, and due to the cool air that flows down through the Combe, takes the longest time to ripen its grapes. For many connoisseurs of burgundy, Clos des Lambrays rarely lived up the quality of a grand cru. It neither has the richness and power of Clos de la Roche nor the finesse of Clos St.-Denis. Interestingly, Clos des Lambrays can age extraordinary well despite its lightweight personality. Could it be the age of its vines (replanted only in 1979) which causes Clos des Lambrays to suffer that lack of extract and intensity?
As mentioned earlier, Clos de Tart is probably the oldest vineyard in Morey. After French revolution, it was than sold to Marey-Monge family. This same family once was a sole proprietor of Romanée St.-Vivant but later sold the larger parcel to DRC. (Until these days, DRC continue to have Marey-Monge printed on their RSV label to commemorate the legacy of this important family). During the crisis in 1930s, both Champy of Beaune and Chauvenet of Nuits St.-George were involved with the Clos. It was later sold to Mommessin of Mâcon by the descendants of the Marey-Monge. The soil here is the stony Bathonian calcareous base and evolving into Bajocian, which has more clay. One interesting aspect is that part of the 0.27 ha parcel of Bonnes-Mares was actually inside the wall of the domaine. So in theory, Mommessin could have produced a Bonnes-Mares. However they opted instead to blend this parcel as a part of the Clos de Tart wine. Another interesting factoid is that the controversial Lebanese consultant, Guy Accad was briefly involved at the Domaine from 1992 and 1993. Today, none of the Accadian cold maceration technique is carried out in this domaine. Much like Clos des Lambrays, Clos de Tart is supposed to emphasize elegance and balance as opposed to power, and both vineyards can age immensely well. Now if only all grand crus were judged by their aging ability alone…
I have no prior experience tasting these two wines, but I much preferred the wilder, gamy, dried rose petal infused, elegant and pure Clos de Lambrays 1998. There was a distinct “stalk” element in this wine (I am very sensitive to stem and has later found out that the domaine practices adding stems into the must), but overall the wine was well balanced and its flavors held well throughout the tasting. Clos de Tart had too much new-wood-infused elements to my liking. Mocha, toffee, tar in a dark raspberries, almost curranty fruit profile. It was lush, thick and powerful. Distinctly more sizeable and more extracted than Clos de Lambrays, this is undoubtedly a more textured and delicious wine. Still it has none of the elegance and balance of the former wine and I seriously doubt that it will age as gracefully as the Clos de Lambrays will.
All Gevrey-Chambertin grand crus lie atop Bajocian limestone. The composition of soil in Chambertin and Clos-de-Bèze are largely similar except for the absence of marnes blaches (a white oolite more commonly associated with Bathonian calcareous from the Côte de Beaune) in Clos-de-Bèze,. Unlike Chambertin, which are fuller, firmer and more austere during its youth, “Clos de Bèze is more complex, more racy and more delicate”, said Charles Rousseau. The following pair of 1998 Clos de Bèze echoed Rousseau’s views fairly faithfully. Despite the stylistic differences, both wines reflected the feminine touch of this grand cru. Robert Groffier’s version was more modern, more pliant, and came across as more Chambolle-like. Candied raspberries with hint of grilled nut on the nose. The palate was seamless and lush, with roasted mocha and licorice in a creamy, edge-free feel. As for Bruno Clair, this was perhaps the finest example I ever had from this Marsannay-based domaine. Very cool-pitched – possibly the highest pitch of all the wines tasted that night – tangy and carried an almost stony-fruit impressions of cherry and red berries. Very silky and impeccably balanced. (This wine taught me the differences between seamlessness and silkiness.) Beside the juicy, satiny palate, there was a good mineral quality and a rare class of finesse. Previously, I have had many good experiences with this house, but occasionally I tend to find their wines to carry a pungent “wild” (or sauvage) and damp earth aromas. This exceptional example, however, has none of that and in fact, the usual Clos de Bèze’s spice and typical Gevrey earth showed effortlessly in this pristine and lively beauty. Very charming.
I have been representing Robert Arnoux’s wine for many years, but only recently, have I come to fully appreciate his unique style. Interestingly, I found his Vosne-Romanée “Les Suchots” to be his finest and most consistent wines although he also produces three grand crus - Clos-Vougeot, Echézeaux and Romanée St.-Vivant. His style reflects the telltale Vosne spices in addition to Arnoux’s signature of “earth” bathed in red raspberries, and occasionally a hint of sauvage touch. Unlike many Vosne, Arnoux’s wines almost never shows pliant, candied or confectionery elements. There is always this transparency and spine, like those found in his Suchots, at once elegant yet intense, robust yet well delineated. Perhaps the typical “cut” of most Arnoux’s wine keeps all the weight and extract in balance.
“Romanée St.-Vivant is the most seductive and captivating nose of any wine in Burgundy, even surpassing the like of Romanée-Conti, La Tâche and Musigny”, said Allen Meadows. Clive Coates added that “Romanée St.-Vivant is the most feminine of all Vosne grand crus… It resembles Musigny and at its best, it is an exquisitely perfumed wine and all silk whilst Richebourg is velvety… but no less intense, no less beautiful… Only at DRC that Richebourg surpasses the Romanée-St.-Vivant… but it is not necessarily the case for Leroy and Hudelot-Noëllat.”
This grand cru was once owned entirely by the Nicolas-Joseph Marey of Marey-Monge family. It was later sold partially to Louis Latour and Charles Noëllat in 1898. They retained the remaining parcel of the vineyard called Clos des Neuf Journaux and in 1966, granted DRC a long-term lease. It was not until the passing of the last descendant of Marey-Monge, Mlle Geneviève, that the final parcel was acquired by DRC in 1988. The main soil here is Bajocian marl, with mixture of brown clay-limestone and pebble. Besides DRC, who owns a 56% share of this vineyard, there are ten other producers that owned parts of this 5.29 ha vineyard. The most substantial ones are Louis Latour, who owns the Les Quatre Journaux lieux-dits (just beneath La Romanée Conti) and was later sold partially to L’Arlot, Arnoux, Cathiard and Thomas-Moillard, and Charles Nöellat’s whose parcel, Clos du Moytan (the most northern) was later sold to Leroy, Hudelot-Noëllat and JJ Confuron.
I often find Arnoux’s Romanée St.-Viviant to be a bit more feminine, rounder and silkier compared to its Les Suchots. It lacks the “punch” and cut, offering less details than its Suchots, and its fruits lean toward darker barriers. Nonetheless, his 1998 RSV was a strong show. Very deep in color, with waves of grilled nut and framboise nose. The dark raspberries intermixed with some secondary development of soy and meat in a sensuous, elegant palate. Well pitched, but not particularly high-pitched, with good structures and purity, there was also good transparency and depth in this beauty. Delicious stuff. DRC 1998 was contributed by one of the participants. The wine was light in appearance, showing sweet, more primary red berry aromas in addition to a spicy note. Typical DRC stylish and sleek frame, not particularly rich, but well structured. Youthful, not yet unveiling its complexity. However, there is good energy and luminosity in this juice.
Echézeaux is like Clos-de-Vougeots. It is important to know which subdivision (or, lieux-dits) the producers made their wines. In Clos-de-Vougeots you have two famous lieux-dits, Le Grand Maupertuis (made famous by Anne Gros) and Le Musigni (by Gros Frère et Soeur). In Echézeaux, there are as many as nine lieux-dits. Since these lieux-dits are located in various gradients plus the fact that both Bathonian and Bajocian limestones coexist and interplay, all these factors contribute to variable resulting wine qualities from this grand cru.
To say that this is a flight of contrast is an understatement. 1998 Echézeaux from Dujac is from lieux-dits of Les Champs-Traversins, the same as that made by A-F. Gros and Albert Bichot (domaine du Clos Frantin). Dujac’s version had a firm nose, with dark fruits, black raspberries in a modern, sweet oak style. On the palate, the wine was expressive, seamless, with raspberry fruits leaning toward syrup-sweetness. The wood-infused flavors of toffee and mocha were evident throughout the palate, which made the wine superficially sweet and accessible. Henri Jayer’s version was from an entirely different world altogether. This was the third time I have tasted this wine from the same source. I am seldom impressed with the same wine twice, especially from a less-than-matured bottle. Yet an exception must be granted for this charmer. I was told by the host that this Echézeaux was from Henri Jayer’s brother, George Jayer’s bottling whose fruits were sourced was from the lieux-dits of Les Treux, instead of Henri’s own Les Cruots. The Les Treux is situated right below Grands Echézeaux. According to Jayer, the vines here are between 50 to 60 years old and the vineyard is low in elevation. It is more sensitive to the effects of weather and produces less than his holding at Les Cruots, which is located higher on the hill and planted in 1924. Compared to my past experience, this bottle came across as tighter, and more obviously structured, with the intensity, massiveness and size not encountered previously and reminiscent of only one other great wine I have tasted recently, Joseph Roty’s Charmes-Chambertin. Precise dark berries and dark cherries with some smoked meat quality. Voluminous and masculine with the depth and precision that is unmistakably grand cru in class. There was attractive sweetness of fruits and mineral quality in an engaging palate loaded with texture and concentration. I am quite certain that both Jayer’s Echézeaux and Roty’s Charmes share the same gravelly soil of Bajocian.
The only blind wine served to us that night turned out to be Comte de Vogüe Musigny 1998. The nose already displayed such captivating sweetness of dark cherry, raspberries and anise. The density and persistent sweetness was clearly grand cru class, and the opulence and readiness also in tune with the wines served tonight, which was clearly from 1998 vintage. Rich and dense like a Vosne grand cru – perhaps not as rich as Richebourg, but quite clearly made of the same breed. I initially thought it was Vosne, but the pronounced earthiness and mineral qualities reminded me of a Charmes-Chambertin. The precise palate and higher pitch also did not suggest any wine from Vosne. When one attendee guessed correctly that it was from Chambolle-Musigny, I immediately thought of Comte de Vogüé. Like Meo-Camuzet, Robert Chevillon, Robert Groffier and Leroy (just to name a few) who are all producers with marked signatures on their wines, I could not think of anyone besides de Vogüé in Chambolle-Musigny who craft wines with such confectionery sweet dark cherry pinot essence. Add to that, a Chambolle wine of such exuberance and power yet refined and effortlessly graceful could only be the very best: Musigny. The palate staining sweetness of de Vogüé Musigny, lingered long on my memory for the whole night. I suppose this is what Allen Meadows would call “thrill a second” juice!
Musigny is one of the greatest vineyards of Burgundy. According to Meadows, he considers La Tâche, Romanée-Conti and Le Musigny to be three of the supreme expressions in all of Burgundy all of whom consistently produce wines with the “Wow!” factor.
In 1882, the Côte de Nuits commune of Chambolle decided to improve its image and added its most illustrious vineyard of Musigny as part of the modern day’s Chambolle-Musigny. The climat of Musigny is largely known for their two parcels of lieux-dits: Les Musigny, which is west of Les Amoureuses and Les Petits Musigny, which just beneath Les Musigny. The truth be known, there is actually a third parcel or subclimat, which is a part of Chambolle premier cru La Combe d’Orveau.
One mention of the word Musigny and Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé immediately comes to mind, and for a good reason too. This domaine is by far the largest owner of Musigny and owns the entire parcel of Les Petits Musigny. It owns a whopping 7.2 ha out of the total of 10.86 ha of this hallowed grand cru. The second largest owner is Jacques-Frédéric Mugnier, with 1.15 ha and is also a producer I greatly admire. The soil here is Bathonian oolite up slope, but turned Comblanchien limestone debris further down. Due to its gradient (between 8-14°), constant earth replacement is needed to fill the top of the slope. The subsoil here is white oolite, with 20% pebbles, permeable limestone, which provides good drainage and hence finesse to the wines. There is a similar red clay (terre rouge) of Bonnes-Mares present here as well, with which adds richness to the wines. Many experts have only superlatives to say about this unique grand cru. Matt Kramer said in his book Making Sense of Burgundy, “…deliver the exhilaration one has a right to expect from Musigny”. Serena Sutcliffe: “…Musigny combines a well-constructed framework, underlying body, with enormous subtlety and silky finesse”. Clive Coates: “…incomparable breed, depth, originality and purity on the finish, a great Musigny is heaven in a glass”. Allen Meadow summed it up as “a burgundy with unmatched finesse and complexity and rivaling the very best in richness and power”.
Sources:
Allen Meadow’s Burghound
Bill Nesto, Beverage Business
Bill Nanson, The Burgundy Report
Clive Coate’s Côte d’Or
James Halliday’s Encyclopedia of Wine by Huge
Serena Sutcliffee’s The Wine of Burgundy
The only blind wine served to us that night turned out to be Comte de Vogüe Musigny 1998. The nose already displayed such captivating sweetness of dark cherry, raspberries and anise. The density and persistent sweetness was clearly grand cru class, and the opulence and readiness also in tune with the wines served tonight, which was clearly from 1998 vintage. Rich and dense like a Vosne grand cru – perhaps not as rich as Richebourg, but quite clearly made of the same breed. I initially thought it was Vosne, but the pronounced earthiness and mineral qualities reminded me of a Charmes-Chambertin. The precise palate and higher pitch also did not suggest any wine from Vosne. When one attendee guessed correctly that it was from Chambolle-Musigny, I immediately thought of Comte de Vogüé. Like Meo-Camuzet, Robert Chevillon, Robert Groffier and Leroy (just to name a few) who are all producers with marked signatures on their wines, I could not think of anyone besides de Vogüé in Chambolle-Musigny who craft wines with such confectionery sweet dark cherry pinot essence. Add to that, a Chambolle wine of such exuberance and power yet refined and effortlessly graceful could only be the very best: Musigny. The palate staining sweetness of de Vogüé Musigny, lingered long on my memory for the whole night. I suppose this is what Allen Meadows would call “thrill a second” juice!
Musigny is one of the greatest vineyards of Burgundy. According to Meadows, he considers La Tâche, Romanée-Conti and Le Musigny to be three of the supreme expressions in all of Burgundy all of whom consistently produce wines with the “Wow!” factor.
In 1882, the Côte de Nuits commune of Chambolle decided to improve its image and added its most illustrious vineyard of Musigny as part of the modern day’s Chambolle-Musigny. The climat of Musigny is largely known for their two parcels of lieux-dits: Les Musigny, which is west of Les Amoureuses and Les Petits Musigny, which just beneath Les Musigny. The truth be known, there is actually a third parcel or subclimat, which is a part of Chambolle premier cru La Combe d’Orveau.
One mention of the word Musigny and Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé immediately comes to mind, and for a good reason too. This domaine is by far the largest owner of Musigny and owns the entire parcel of Les Petits Musigny. It owns a whopping 7.2 ha out of the total of 10.86 ha of this hallowed grand cru. The second largest owner is Jacques-Frédéric Mugnier, with 1.15 ha and is also a producer I greatly admire. The soil here is Bathonian oolite up slope, but turned Comblanchien limestone debris further down. Due to its gradient (between 8-14°), constant earth replacement is needed to fill the top of the slope. The subsoil here is white oolite, with 20% pebbles, permeable limestone, which provides good drainage and hence finesse to the wines. There is a similar red clay (terre rouge) of Bonnes-Mares present here as well, with which adds richness to the wines. Many experts have only superlatives to say about this unique grand cru. Matt Kramer said in his book Making Sense of Burgundy, “…deliver the exhilaration one has a right to expect from Musigny”. Serena Sutcliffe: “…Musigny combines a well-constructed framework, underlying body, with enormous subtlety and silky finesse”. Clive Coates: “…incomparable breed, depth, originality and purity on the finish, a great Musigny is heaven in a glass”. Allen Meadow summed it up as “a burgundy with unmatched finesse and complexity and rivaling the very best in richness and power”.
Sources:
Allen Meadow’s Burghound
Bill Nesto, Beverage Business
Bill Nanson, The Burgundy Report
Clive Coate’s Côte d’Or
James Halliday’s Encyclopedia of Wine by Huge
Serena Sutcliffee’s The Wine of Burgundy
No comments:
Post a Comment