Burgundy Fans: Opinion Requested

[Jenise]

You may have heard that the 2004 vintage is somewhat controversial because some people claim it is underripe and to be forgotten since "Vintage of the Century" 2005 is here, while others claim 2004 just needs a little bottle age and is a welcome counterpoint to the hepped-up 05s.

What's cool is this nonsense has affected the delicious 04 white burgs equally. There are some screaming deals out there.

[James Roscoe]

They still had some tickets left. I should probably go, but I think I'm obligated to a birthday party that evening in Bowie. Such is the turn of the worm. Maybe at the Bordeaux vs. California event?

James - this is on June 30 at 1:30pm at the French Embassy, right? WWA also shows France vs. the Rest of the World on the same day, but at 7pm. Busy day at the embassy. Anyway, I'll probably go to the Bordeaux/CA event since I already did the latter when they had it back in March.

Wow, didn't expect my li'l ole post to generate so many follow ups! I'm curious now though, and will have to pick up an '03 to see what all the controversy is about.

My wife's birthday is the night before the June 30th deal at the French Embassy, so I'm trying to get her to agree to the wine plan.

Burgundy always generated controversey. It's a region of passion.

What's cool is this nonsense has affected the delicious 04 white burgs equally. I've been buying them for 1/3 to 1/2 the original MSRP.

Wow. I don't follow the trench wars of White Burgundy Purchasing, but that sounds like a positive effect of the Hysterical Vintage Generalization System.

OK, I attended the seminar put on by the French Wine Society seminar titled "Terrior: The Soul of Burgundy" presented by Don Kinnan from Kobrand Corp.

First, let me say that for me, the highlight of the evening was the articulate enthusiasm with which Don made his presentation. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to him speak, and he presented a wealth of information with great visuals to go along. It was a small group, no more than 50 guests, and he was very attentive to questions.

Below is the list of the wines tasted, in order of tasting. I didn't take very detailed notes because we moved rather quickly. I will say that I think the whites stole the show for me, possibly because some of the reds could probably have used a few more years. The prices were from Calvert Woodley. Honestly, I would probably only consider buying the Chablis and the Beane, not only because they're the least expensive of all sampled, but because I genuinely liked them the best (cheap taste I guess!).

2004 Chablis: Very nice and elegant, minerally and great acidity, what I guess is a classic exampleof Chablis. $19.99

2004 Mersault-Genevrieres: Nutty, subtly oaked. Drinking well right now.
$61.99

2004 Puligny-Montrachet Les Combettes: Still somewhat closed. $69.99

2003 Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot, Clos de la Chapelle: Strong honey on the nose, sweeter and syrupier than the others, some slight candied notes came out towards the end. Good example of how different '03 was, I was glad that they had this lone '03 so I could see the difference. $61.99

2004 Beane-Theurons: Don said that he thought this was very fruit forward w/ cherries and other red fruits; I got more spice and smoke. Regardless, again the description that jumped to mind was "elegant". $24.99

2004 Volnay Clos de la Barre: I got the cherries on this one, and it was a bit more substantial than the Beane. Don thought it could wait a few years. $46.99

2004 Pommard-Epenots: Tart cherries, more complex than the first two reds, good structure, nice finish. $54.99

2004 Gevrey-Chambertin: No notes. $31.99

2004 Gevrey-Chambertin, Clos Saint-Jacques: Evident tannins, this was closed and as Don said, could probably go another 10-20 years. $79.99

2004 Clos Vougeot: My first grand cru ever, I have no notes on this My nose and palate were overwhelmed at this point. I do recall Don mentioning that this, too, could ride for another 10-20 years. $84.99

What's cool is this nonsense has affected the delicious 04 white burgs equally. There are some screaming deals out there.

I agree, Jenise. It seems that '04 white Burg prices are actually dropping. I found a 2004 Clos des Quarts Pouilly-Fuissé by Merlin the other day for $28! That's a steal! I hope that word doesn't get out. Meanwhile, I've pretty much been prices out of the market on any red Burg 1er, or above.

Keeping in mind that learning about Burgundy on your own can be an expensive and daunting challenge, this seminar seems worth the price of admission. This is a region where without some guidance it will be hit or miss and remember that $89 is a fair price to pay for the wines line up you note. No area has such a high "tuition" price than Burgundy in that a budget of $500 for Burgundy education will barely scratch the surface of education ($500 spent for Spanish wines will give you a much higher range and depth of expereience!) Moreover, the $89 paid for a educated presenter of these wines underscores the value of this seminar. It has been my experience that the Kobrand people have developed an excellent education program and offer informative supplemental materials such as maps and guides that are reliable. (I have no connection to Kobrand, but you'd be lucky to find the Clos Vougeot for $89)

K,

I was there, too. Would have loved to meet you, but I decided to come at the last minute and don't know what you look like, so missed the opportunity. I, too, found it very enjoyable, except for the beginning and the snafus with water and air conditioning, and very educational. I love Burgundy but can't afford any but basic Bourgognes and village level wines, except for occasional splurges, so this seemed to me a good opportunity to try the 1er crus and one grand cru and compare appellations. It lived up to its billing for me.

My own very perfunctory notes:

Chablis: Enjoyed it the most of the whites (guess I'm cheap, too), steely, minerally, citrus, quite nice. I'm not a huge white wine drinker but I love Muscadets and I suppose one could say Chablis is the Muscadet of Burgundy.

Meursault: A little funk, earth, some flowers on the nose. The palate was lean with lots of earth, and then some hazelnuts came out on the finish (though here I might have influenced by the description), especially with the cheese. Some structure.

Puligny-Montrachet: This was curious to me in that I didn't get a whole lot on the nose yet the palate tasted flowery to me (is that even possible?), with an earthy nutty finish. It was interesting to taste these side-by-side; I prefered the nose of the Meursault but the palate of this one.

Chassagne-Montrachet: Really obvious in both the aromas and flavors that this was a 2003. I imagine it was a creditable effort for the vintage, the nose was better than the palate, and after two tastes and several sniffs the rest went in the bucket.

Beaune: I found this simple, fruity and pleasant with some nice earthiness, but it didn't ring my chimes like other Burgs have.

Volnay: This had a beautiful spicy nose that burst from the glass with some cherry, flowers and a touch of cinnamon. Really liked this. The palate had light, delicate, velvety cherry fruit with some earth and spice. Delightful, I thought.

Pommard: The nose was a little darker, stronger and more cinnamony than the Volnay. The palate was also bigger, spicy, minerally, with black cherry fruit. The "feminine/masculine" contrast between the Volnay and Pommard was evident. I liked them both a lot, though if I had to pick it would be the Volnay -- a little more my style, FWIW.

Gevrey-Chambertin: The nose was quite earthy but also with flowers and perfume. The palate was very textured, you could almost taste it -- very interesting. It had red fruit flavors with some spiciness, elegant, pleasant and structured. I liked this and thought I was probably the best value of the wines tasted.

G-C Clos St.-Jacques: Heavier nose than the village G-C, more cinnamon. The palate was very velvety with heavier weight, black cherry, cinnamon, earth and spice, lower acidity than the villlage G-C but enough, very very tannic. Clearly needs a lot of time and lots of potential. More finesse than the last wine...

Clos Vougeot: The nose is closed, coiled, almost minerally with lots of earth and smoke. It grows more floral with a little time in the glass. The palate is exceptionally tannic, more black-fruited than red, dark earth, some spices, well-structured but more tannic than anything else.

Overall, I think my favorite was the Volnay, with the Pommard and Village G-C coming in second and third. The potential of the last two wines was obvious and in 15-20 years I'm sure they'd be showing the best (the rest of course would probably be dead).

Again, this was very enjoyable and educational and it was nice to be able to spend a little time with each wine, taste with and without cheese, take notes and listen to informed discussion.

Honestly, I would probably only consider buying the Chablis and the Beane, not only because they're the least expensive of all sampled, but because I genuinely liked them the best (cheap taste I guess!)

Glad that the event worked out well. And as you probably have seen from other regions, the lower cost wines are often the ones that are more accessible/enjoyable when young, which is a perfect combination for value purchasing and drinking..

Now, a generation later, high ratings for an even more atypical vintage pretty much force a choice: Is he right because the wines are hedonistic (albeit tannic) fruit bombs? Or is he wrong for the same reason?

Or maybe, more importantly, will he prove to have been right 30 years from now?

Parker's central thesis is that "wine ages on its fruit", but it hasn't been long enough yet to see whether that holds true for the new generation of Parker-ized wines.

Circa 2030, or 2040, which [red] burgundy vintage will most people prefer? 1999? 2002? 2003? 2005?

And assuming his central thesis is correct, then perhaps the most valid criticism of Parker might be that he over-values cellarworthiness, and, as a result, underrates wines that are ready to be drunk now [as opposed to three decades from now].

Or maybe, more importantly, will he prove to have been right 30 years from now?

...And assuming his central thesis is correct, then perhaps the most valid criticism of Parker might be that he over-values cellarworthiness, and, as a result, underrates wines that are ready to be drunk now [as opposed to three decades from now].

Huh - he just revisited this question today:

Re: 2003 blind : Montrose , Gruaud and Lafite

Herwig...think all of you got it right...especially if looking at future potential...I have had Gruaud Larose 3X...among the softest and superficially charming,but lacking depth and richness.....it has nothing in common with the great Gruauds such as 1982,1986,or 1990...also distinctively herbal/leathery.....yet I understand those liking it as it is much more evolved and more approachable than the more concentrated and deeper,more complete wines of the vintage....which always leads to the question...are tasters rating it on immediate friendliness or ultimate potential?....anyone buying this wine expecting something brilliant in 10-15 years better keep their fingers crossed....it doesn't have much of a ceiling.....compared to the other top St.Juliens, there is significantly less of the production declassified and put in a second wine, or sold off in bulk....and if my instincts are correct,this is why Gruaud has nothing in common..other than the vineyard and the same wine-maker(but different ownership), than the legends of the past....