Attended the Gerstl trade tasting in Zürich on November 23rd with Fredrik and Marc. Many wines were sold out before the tasting, and as a consequence some that Fredrik had most wanted to sample were not given to taste (e.g. Rousseau’s top three etc.).
The following are almost all 2005 red Burgundies I have so far tasted, and I am already looking forward to having more, possibly from restaurant wine lists, too, as it is a beautifully balanced vintage with virtually all wines showing very well at this premature, primary stage.
We have had too few to answer the obvious, nagging question: “Is it the legendary super vintage everybody says it is?” The critical consensus appears to be overwhelming. Certainly from what I have had so far, it appears there is lots of good wine across the board, plenty of standard Pinots and village wines for the budget-minded, the 1er Crus and Grand Crus expectedly showing greater terroir, without the qualitative step up (or down, depending on the perspective) being nearly as great as in many vintages. The wines are balanced and fruity, for the most part fresh, sweetly ripe and expressive. Colours are almost without exception beautifully brilliant raspberry-rubies with black reflections (which is why I soon gave up on noting each wine’s individual colour). It is tempting to think of them as e.g. 1999s with livelier acidity, or 2002s with sappier tannin (it is the combination that gives the 2005s their unique character). The wines all seem pure, although not more so than in other top vintages (Thierry Mortet even told me purity, while mostly impeccable, is not the main strength of the vintage). They are certainly concentrated enough across the board (these are Pinot Noirs, after all, depends on what one is looking for), some nicely so, although same as in other recent top vintages like 1996, 1999 and 2002, there were no extraordinarily concentrated examples (“à la 1993, for example”, as Fredrik noted). “Too unproblematic a vintage?” quipped Rainer (he finds the average concentration level “typically French” suspecting a laisser faire attitude when all seems to go well all year long). What struck me most is that 2005 is a vintage that could hardly be easier to interpret, and that most wines should drink well early as well as age well (although, without doubt, shut down and hibernate sometime in between). In fact, as Fredrik said, in a vintage like this, many wines are bound to be drunk up young and never get a chance to mature.
As to individual AOCs that stand out, we definitely have not yet tasted enough wines to say anything with confidence. I would certainly love to taste more examples from Nuits-Saint-Georges, as the couple poured here were standouts in terms of density, structure and grip – but that may have been sheer coincidence.
Wines presented in the order in which they appear in the flyer/booklet, not the order I tasted them in. Tasted all the reds first, thus missed tasting most of the whites (the whole portfolios of Robert-Denogent and William Fèvre, unfortunately).
Leflaive Bourgogne Blanc 2005
A bit bland on the nose, faint nuts, medium-weight. Rating: 83+/84(+?)
Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet 2005
A bit oakier, soft nuts, more lemon fruit, a bit fresher and livelier, soft but nice soil notes, a pretty wine with sufficient fat, medium body, a bit short perhaps. Rating: 88
Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Clavoillon 2005
Fair enough, a tiny bit smokier minerality, longer wine, less oaky. Deceptive in this vintage, at least that is what I hope it is, given I thought it merely a hair better than a bottle of the blurrier and softer-structured 2003 tasted three months ago. My gut instinct suggests there must be greater potential to this, but to actually discern it was not easy. Rating: 89+/90(+?)
Leflaive Puligny-Montrachet Pucelles 2005
As usual the most minerally, and thus my favourite 1er Cru in Leflaive’s portfolio. A bit oakier and nuttier. Not so much denser, but more alcohol. Some lime, faint bitter note. More persistent on the finish perhaps. I was a bit sad that the Bâtard-Montrachet was emptied by the time I got to Anne-Claude Leflaive’s booth, but all who tasted both not only preferred Bonneau du Martray’s Corton-Charlemagne, but all except one told me they did not find it superior to the Pucelles here (the consensus seemed to be that the Bâtard is fatter, a bit more voluminous, if anything). Rating: 90+?
Marc Morey Chassagne-Montrachet 2005
Smooth, sweet, some grip, but a bit simple, barely medium length. Rating: 86
Marc Morey Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot 2005
More tightly structured, good tannic grip, some stone dust minerality, some animal fur, fair enough body. Not too profound though, either. Rating: 88(+?)
Pierre Morey Bourgogne 2005
Medium-light, but has some orangey grip. Fair enough complexity, body and length. Some forest floor, nicely tannic. Fair QPR. Rating: 85+/86
Pierre Morey Monthélie 2005
Fruitier, sweeter, more complex by a hair, a little animal fur. Medium-plus body, medium length. Rating: 87+/88?
Pierre Morey Pommard Grands Epenots 2005
Smokier, more scorched tree bark, much more complex, good depth and density. Attractive terroir. Good body. Quite long. Not inexpensive, but a fair QPR in the 1er Cru category. Rating: 91+
Bonneau du Martray Corton-Charlemagne 2005
A top vintage of Bonneau du Martray Corton-Charlemagne, as everyone I had a chat with agreed. Too pretty almost at this early stage to tell how well-structured it is exactly. Almost colourless. Nice fresh herbs, quite crystalline citrusy fruit, medium-fat, nice a bit firestone-like minerality, good body but refreshing enough, good length. Possibly great. Rating: 94+?
Bonneau du Martray Corton 2005
The red has become so much more serious in recent years. To me the third best wine of the tasting, thus a quite remarkable QPR buy in the Grand Cru category. Reminded me a bit of a Roumier Bonnes Mares in this vintage. Very well-balanced, a quite expressive Corton, complex, good mid-palate density and richness, softly nutty oak, nice body and a consistent, balanced, warming, long finish. One of the more concentrated 2005s poured that day, a typical but perfumey-feminine Corton without excess weight. Rating: 92+/93(+?)
Roger Belland Santenay Commes 2005
Lightly fig-like fruit, medium body, concentration and length, but fair enough complexity for the money. Rating: ~88
Roger Belland Santenay Gravières 2005
More grip and minerality, lightly smoky fruit of nice density, animal fur. A QPR standout of the tasting. Rating: 89+?
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay 2005
Nicely fruity, sweet and smooth, but also showed some soil notes, and a fair backbone, body and length for a village. Rating: 88+?
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay Frémiets 2005
A bit saltier-minerally core, nicer body and depth, good medium-plus body, longer. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay Champans 2005
Tighter core and earthy-minerally grip, nicely integrated forest floor earth notes in quite dense fruit, good body and length, quite complex and deep aftertaste. Well-balanced wine, more Volnay-typical than the Clos des Ducs. Rating: 91+/92(+?)
Marquis d’Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs 2005
Fruitier initially, more grey pepper and graphite, tobacco, a bit drier and dustier tannin. Probably has greater potential, but less Volnay in character than the Champans. Rating: 91+/92+?
Tollot-Beaut Chorey-Lès-Beaune Pièce du Chapitre 2005
A monopole vineyard. Nice density, some earth and medium oak, not too lively up front, perhaps higher-toned towards the back end. Rating: 87?
Tollot-Beaut Savigny-lès-Beaunes Champ Chevrey 2005
A monopole vineyard. Faint tree bark, a bit sweeter and fruitier, medium body, warmth and length. Not too high-toned either. Rating: 87+
Tollot-Beaut Aloxe-Corton 2005
Quite dense fruit sweetness and nice metal notes, good density, quite subtle and finesseful earthiness. Nice body, lightly warming alcohol, quite long. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Tollot-Beaut Beaune Clos du Roy 2005
Almost cork taint-like in character. “Somewhat dry oak here”, Madame said. Slightly bitter, dry and short indeed. Not without depth, but definitely a bit problematic at this stage. Should recover to at least some exent. Rating: 83+
Tollot-Beaut Corton-Bressandes 2005
Good depth of minerality, depth and sweetness, some crystallized as well as jammy berries. No more than medium, though? Rating: 89+/90?
Guyon Bourgogne Pinot Noir 2005
Pinot Noir verging on Burgundy (Fredrik quipped some 10% Cabernet Sauvignon does Pinot Noir so much good ;^) Lighter than most, a bit artificial chewing gum fruit in the context of the many crisp raspberry-fruited examples. Medium body and length. There were better QPR buys in the generic and village Burgundy category. Rating: 84+
Guyon Chorey-Lès-Beaune Les Bons Ores 2005
A touch of sulphur here (vendange entière without sulphur, we were told)? Showed good density and minerality, quite palate-staining. I am not yet sure what to think of the style, but qualitatively a QPR standout of the tasting. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Guyon Chorey-Lès-Beaune Les Bons Ores 2004
Earthy, forest floor, nice medium fruit, crisp tannin, good body and length. If this is any indication at all, these wines age much better (in the sense of Burgundy- rather than modern Pinot Noir-typical) than the initially superficial style seems to suggest. Rating: 86+/87?
Guyon Savigny-Lès-Beaune Les Peuillets 2005
Drier forest floor, comparable depth, but less complex, less fruity than the 2005 Les Bons Ores. Pine needle top note. Medium length. Rating: 88+?
Guyon Aloxe-Corton Les Guerets 2005
Firm wine with body, grip, stony minerality and good length, quite palate-staining. Rating: 89+
Guyon Gevrey-Chambertin Les Platières 2005
Sweaty Gevrey, but quite sweet with some forest floor, nice ripe acids. Rating: 89+/90?
Guyon Nuits-Saint-Georges Les Herbues 2005
More grip, saltier at the core, a complex and firm wine of good density, nice body and length. Rating: 90+
Guyon Vosne-Romanée En Orveaux 2005
A bit softer, a bit more superficially sweet, faintly syrupy but ripe fruit. Medium length. Rating: 88+
Guyon Echézeaux 2005
Lightly cardboard-like tree bark that initially made me wonder if this had a cork taint. Some Echézeaux duck meat, good forest floor-tinged fruit, building medium-plus length. The relative step from the village to the Grand Cru here is even less evident than in the other portfolios. Rating: 90(+?)
Gros Frères & Soeurs Hautes Côtes de Nuits 2005
Some tobacco and metal notes, slightly leady-heavy fruit. Rating: 86+
Gros Frères & Soeurs Vosne-Romanée 2005
A bit more roasted, much denser, really a wine of good stuffing in context, lightly petrolly fruit, smooth, metal note, somewhat leady-heavy finish. Rating: 89+/90?
Comte Georges de Vogüé Chambolle-Musigny 2005
From a first bottle meaty raspberry, fairly concentrated, but not too lively, marzipan-tinged. From a second bottle fatter, sweeter, more profound as well as more flattering. Rating: 88+?
Comte Georges de Vogüé Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru 2005
From Musigny vines that are less than 25 years old. More concentrated yet lighter on its feet than the generic Chambolle, oakier but also a bit more complex and animal, firm, good body. Tannin is a bit oakier here. Fresher, longer. Identical from a second bottle. Rating: 90+
Comte Georges de Vogüé Musigny Vieilles Vignes 2005
How much I prefer the style to only a few years back. This truly smells and tastes like Musigny. Fresh, floral, quite lively, complex raspberry and redcurrant, violet and rose petal. Faintly blood-orangey acids. Identical from another bottle at the end of the tasting. Do I find this better than the 1990? That is easy to answer: while the 2005 seems stylistically preferable, I do not think it is that great. Rainer thought this “neither especially profound nor concentrated nor complex.” Rating: 95+/96(+?)
Comte Georges de Vogüé Bonnes Mares 2005
Frankly, while I have had some great, great Bonnes Mares, I am not per se a fan. The wines from this site usually seem more Morey than Chambolle to me, and given the choice, I would in most cases rather have either a Musigny or then a Clos de Roche. There are exceptions, of course, as always. Blacker in colour. As concentrated as the Musigny, perhaps more so, but less sweet. Meaty, dark-fruity, Morey-like grey pepper dust, long. Good body, nicely firm, has grip. Clean, excellent terroir expression. Same from a second bottle. I seem to like this as well or better than the 1996. Rating: 94+
Clos des Lambrays Morey-Saint-Denis 2005
Lighter than most, not much depth, faint grey pepper, barely medium length. Has tannin but soft acidity. Rating: 86+?
Clos des Lambrays Morey-Saint-Denis Les Loups 2005
More complex, denser fruit, more body, finer-grained and more flavourful tannin, longer finish. Pauillac-like lead pencil top note. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Clos des Lambrays 2005
Well-balanced, a bit peppery fruit, stony minerality. Not a heavyweight, has a good core but wholly free from heaviness, the kind of Burgundy I like, the kind one needs to pay attention to (but which I am afraid may go largely unnoticed in the context of a trade tasting – of course Thierry Broin agreed his style is not of the obvious sort). Subtlety and finesse on the back end. Rating: ~92
Perrot-Minot Bourgogne 2005
A fair QPR, Gevrey-like if a bit light. Nice tannin. Medium-plus length. Rating: 86+?
Perrot-Minot Gevrey-Chambertin 2005
A bit nutty (at least partly with oak) and sweaty, some orange rind, medium complexity, a bit short on the finish. Rating: 87+
Perrot-Minot Morey-Saint-Denis En la Rue de Vergy 2005
Earthy-complex crystallized fruit, tree bark, animal fur, spicy, salty-grainy core, palate-staining, but oaky despite being aged in “only” 50% new oak. Rating: 90+/91(+?)
Perrot-Minot Nuits-Saint-Georges La Richemone Vieilles Vignes 2005
From 65-year-old vines. A standout of the tasting, concentrated and dense, lightly inky, firm, has body and length. Now this could stand up to its oak. Rating: 92+?
Perrot-Minot Chambolle-Musigny Combe d’Orveaux 2005
From 77-year-old vines high above the Clos Vougeot and virtually surrounded by Musigny (actually it says “Vieilles Vignes” on most if not all bottles of Perrot-Minot, forgot to note which in detail). I have had some exceptional wines from this site, and this is not a bad one either. Lightly earthy tree bark, tannic, nice although not too complex fruit, medium-plus length. Perhaps not too oaky for Perrot-Minot. Rating: 90+
Perrot-Minot Mazoyères-Chambertin Vieilles Vignes 2005
75-year-old vines planted in the highest part of this cru in stony, iron-rich soil up against the Latricières and Combottes, typically yielding tiny, millerande grapes, Christophe Perrot-Minot said. Tree bark, metal and mineral notes with depth. Darker fruit, marzipan from the oak, furry tannin, shows grip and building length. No better and at least as oaky as the Nuits Richemone, more animal and tannic. Rating: 92+/93(+?)
Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin 2005
Sweet strawberry juice. Medium body and length. Expressive, flavourful tannin and acidity. Rating: 87+?
Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin Lavaux Saint-Jacques 2005
Soft animal fur, scorched tree bark and forest floor, tasty fruit of good ripeness, fair tannin, nice little greenishness, just enough to keep this fresh and resistant to oxidation. Rating: 88+/89
Armand Rousseau Charmes-Chambertin 2005
Nice medium density and fruit, a little viscosity, quality tannin, soft metal note, but not too attractive terroir expression, Fredrik even found it “trivial”. Rating: 89(+?)
Armand Rousseau Ruchottes-Chambertin Clos des Ruchottes 2005
Nice terroir expression, good metal notes and tightness, loved the tannin quality here. Good density for Rousseau, but also the trademark finesse and depth. Some mid-palate fat. Mild but refreshing acidity. Lovely wine, tasty at this early stage. Rating: 92+?
Thierry Mortet Bourgogne 2005
Nicely sweet and full-tasting, good density for a generic, good warming body and length. Super QPR. Rating: ~87?
Thierry Mortet Gevrey-Chambertin 2005
Nice, not too up front, unflashy style, nice body and medium-plus length, good soil notes. More masculine than the Vigne Belle. Rating: 88+/89?
Thierry Mortet Gevrey-Chambertin Vigne Belle 2005
Not denser, no more grip than the village, but seems lighter than it is. Fruitier, more “opulent”, sweeter. Nice blood orange acids and fruit combination. Fair enough grip, fairly tannic but fresh. Rating: 88+
Thierry Mortet Chambolle-Musigny Aux Beaux Bruns 2005
Sweeter, rounder, more perfumed and feminine as one might expect from a Chambolle, but not lighter, a reserved but ageworthy style, nice depth and potential. Nicely smooth. Faint metal underpinning. Rating: 89+/90?
Bruno Clair Marsannay 2005
Nicely fruity, some herbs, some charcoal, medium body, medium-grainy tannin, but quite good freshness, medium-plus length. Fredrik thought this one of the QPR standouts of the tasting. Rating: 87+
Bruno Clair Morey-Saint-Denis En la Rue de Vergy 2005
A bit sweeter and denser, medium-plus body and length. Stony minerality, faint forest floor earth, a medium-salty core, the tannin is a bit dusty-grainy. Rating: 88+?
Bruno Clair Savigny-lès-Beaune La Dominode 2005
Also sweet, medium-plus density, longer, more alcoholic perhaps, but fruitier, too. Good expression and earthiness on the finish. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Bruno Clair Gevrey-Chambertin Clos Saint-Jacques 2005
One of my favourite 1er Crus in all of Burgundy. Lovely terroir, depth and minerality. Pine needle fruit, darker raspberry than most, has body and length, a powerful and finesseful finish. Rating: 91+/92(+?)
Bruno Clair Chambertin Clos de Bèze 2005
Smokier, with a tobacco ash note, not too sweaty-animal, no more concentrated than the Clos Saint-Jacques, but perhaps a fraction denser, some reserve fruit at the core. Not a heavy-weight, but showing potential. Balanced finish. Rating: 92+?
Gaja Langhe Sorì San Lorenzo 1997
Another bottle from the same restaurant wine list as last month. Was great to end the day with a wine on this quality level, helps to put things into perspective, in particular realising that I had not been too severe in my assessment of the 2005 Burgundies we tasted that day, especially given the fact that Burgundy has always been and remains my favourite red wine. No, there were no wines quite on this level of quality poured at the Gerstl tasting, which does not of course preclude the possibility that there may be some such 2005 Burgundies. No need to type another TN, this bottle was exactly like the other a month earlier. The concentration, smooth cherry liqueur and marzipan sweetness, the utterly exceptional precision and focus, the freshness and cut, the now utterly perfect use and integration of new oak, it all struck me as perhaps even more amazing after tasting through so many beautifully balanced Pinots, whose average quality I found all the same more impressive than any wine in particular. No doubt the 1997 SSL was wine of the day. Although really too young to drink, it is already so close to perfection, its quality so easy to judge... Fredrik asked Marc and me if we had ever tasted a better Barbaresco. “Better”? I started thinking of the greatest I have had, Giacosa in particular from the seventies but also later, Gaja’s 1989 SSL and 1990 ST, but no, I had to agree with Marc, I could think of none that is “better” than this. Rating: 98+?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
